On sectorial water use and obfuscation via statistics

So a friend of mine posted this picture on their Facebook wall, and its message seemed well-intentioned but also so very problematic.

Let me first state that I do think that California must make hard decisions about water restrictions and water use, and I don't think that the current forms of water restrictions and bans are anywhere approaching what would be an equitable diminution in water use (and never mind the problems that California's system of water laws, interstate compacts, and inter-watershed irrigation systems play in creating further problems in the legal, political, and water management worlds). However, I don't know whether this image presents a useful comparison on all fronts. Furthermore, the presentation is arguably deceptive, since the compared units are not the same, with toilets (presumably being the one thing that the viewer is supposed to be sympathetic toward, since it is placed last) being based on a very low metric of gallons/flush of one toilet, and all the rest (presumably the ones the viewer is supposed to feel antagonistically toward, since they are often held up as being "enemies" of water use) being based on really large sector-wide annual figures.

This simplistic switch of metrics undermines the presumed argument of the image on two fronts. First is the casual deception: why present sector-wide annual figures for the "bad" water uses, and personal, single-use figures for the "good" water use? This presentation does not present an easy-to-grasp comparison between water uses at the State level. (There is also the problem of using words like "million" and "trillion" to describe the amount of water used, since it is so easy for people to lose the differential scales between hundred, thousand, million, billion, and trillion, but those sorts of distinctions are better covered in places such as this visualization of what $1 trillion looks like.) In order to place the water used in Californian toilets in direct comparison with the others, we must first convert the value of 1.6 gallons/flush into a figure of gallons/year throughout California. When we do this, we find that toilet-flush water use in California is at least:

1.6 gallons/flush (x 5 flushes/person/day)
= 8 gallons/person/day (x 38,800,000 Californians)
= 310,400,000 gallons/day in California (x 365 days/year)
= 113,296,000,000 gallons/year

(I write "at least" 113,296,000,000 gallons/year, since I am using the figures for household toilets and only 5 flushes/day, even though the average is somewhat higher. This number doesn't include, of course, water use statistics for public toilets, urinals, port-a-jons, etc.)

Now let's list all the water uses presented in the picture in increasing gallons/year:

70,000,000 gallons/year (fracking)
400,000,000 gallons/year (Nestlé bottled water)
113,296,000,000 gallons/year (toilet flushes)
1,100,000,000,000 gallons/year (almond farms)

When we look at toilet flushes in this perspective, it is clear that it is 1,618 times greater than the reported value for fracking. Furthermore, it is 283 times greater than the reported value for Nestlé bottled water. Indeed, when presented in this way, California toilet-water use can be presented as being far more profligate than either fracking or Nestlé bottled water, and by a LONG shot, simply because California has SO many people, and almost 60% of that population (22,680,000 in 2010) lives in sunny, drought-ridden SoCal. This places domestic water use (which includes baths/showers, toilets, dishwashing, lawn irrigation, carwashing, etc) far ahead of most industrial water uses... save agriculture

Indeed, when compared to the reported value of almond farms, toilet-water use is a mere 10%. However, there's a problem with the number presented in the graphic for almond farms. Specifically, the number of 1.1 trillion gallons/year is 1.6 times greater than the value reported by Hanson out of UCDavis, whose figure of roughly 2.1 milion AF/year works out to roughly 680 billion gallons/year (compared to this number, toilet flush water use is roughly 16%).

Let's look, though, at water used to grow alfalfa, which is, according to Hanson, the largest agricultural water use in the State. Accordling to Hanson, alfalfa grown in California uses roughly 5.2 million AF/year, or roughly 1.7 trillion gallons/year (which is about 2.5 times greater than the amount he reports for almond and pistachio irrigation). The second-largest agricultural water use (reported by Hansen) is for forages, which uses roughly 3.3 million AF/year, or roughly 1.1 trillion gallons/year.

So we can see that -- from an argument based around comparative water uses alone -- the merits of placing fracking and Nestlé bottled water fall flat, since toilet-flush water use far outstrips both of these two uses combined. It would have been a better argument to put up alfalfa farms and forage farms. However, it's almond growers that have been in the news, and not alfalfa or forage, which is likely why it is almond growers that are shown (even though they are not the largest agricultural water users, and even though they have a far more valuable crop than either alfalfa or forage crop farms).

Now, one could still use the water use figures presented in the graphic to make associated arguments, but I was unable to find a single argument that held true against the fracking, Nestlé, and almond farms while preserving toilet flushing. For example, one argument for water conservation that is often made against fracking regards removing water from the hydrological cycle completely, and it's true that one could make the argument that water used in fracking is effectively "lost" to the immediate hydrological cycle (since fracking wastewater is often deepwell injected) and therefore cannot be used for drinking or any other use, but that argument doesn't hold for almond farming or bottled water, since both return their water to the immediate hydrological cycle (primarily as groundwater recharge, evapotranspiration, and biomass decay in the case of almond farms and as urine that is flushed down a toilet in the case of bottled water). So the argument that it's about removing water from the hydrological cycle use is not valid across cases.

Another common argument against fracking, irrigation, and bottled water is that these uses are consumptive uses. In the case of fracking, this is undoubtedly true (as laid out above), and water used in agriculture is often also considered to be consumptive. However, the charge of consumptive use can also leveled at most of California's toilet water flushes, since much of the State's water is pumped from watersheds in Northern California and the Colorado River, creating consumptive water use pressures in those areas.

The only real argument that comes to mind is that it is unfair for the government to impose water restrictions upon flesh-and-blood citizens but not impose water restrictions upon corporate "citizens." However, such an argument isn't a water volume argument, but a water rights argument, especially in how Californian water rights are not egalitarian, with a large part of this argument lying in the problems associated with California's water rights laws. Most individual Californian citizens do not own any water rights, let alone water rights that predate 1914. The date of 1914 forms the demarcation date between so-called "junior" and "senior" water rights, and those holding junior water rights will have their rights to water curtailed before those of senior water rights holders. Such a system of rights is based on a "first in place, first in right" principle, with a strong incentive for the right to be held by a non-human entity (such as a corporation, water district, or the like), since the death of an individual could lead to the "death" of that right. From an equity perspective, such distributions of water rights is inherently inequitable, since it creates structural inequalities that become evermore entrenched as the value of water increases (making the purchase or transfer of water rights less likely to occur). During times when water availability is high, such a structurally unequal distribution of water rarely impacts large swathes of citizens. In cases of drought, though, such inequalities emerge. But regardless of the structural inequalities that California's water rights system imposes upon its citizens, the percecption of unfairness in who gets the restrictions is not due to water volumes (as the graphic implies), but due to water policy and water law.

One "good" note though (if only from a perspective of masochistic schadenfreude), is that if the drought continues, it is likely that even those holding senior rights (which includes many major agricultural water users) will have their water withdrawals restricted.

In sum, while bottled water and fracking are often seen as problematic for various social, public health, and environmental reasons, the comparative water consumption in these two sectors doesn't hold a candle to the total sector-wide water consumption of toilets. Furthermore, hiding the scales of water use between different water uses in the way presented in the graphic is deceptive, and such deception can foster mistrust of the messenger or supporter of the message. In other words, in order to make the graphic less deceptive and more salient to a message associated with different types of water use, it needs more than just a simple comparison of water volumes.

Of course, this additional nuance can create problems when trying to disseminate a message...

Nature Remains Legal (no matter what facebook posts say)

I saw this on Facebook today, and I was torn. On the one hand, I believe that I understood the sentiment behind the question, but on the other hand I recognized immediately that the question - posed with those photos and captions - is a factually meaningless question, since it conflates disparate meanings of what is the United States, confuses (il)legality with regulation, and uses a troubling definition of "nature" as its counterpoint to the questioning of the purported illegality of the four photos.

While the photo is technically true, it is only so if you make all the mistakes listed above. So I'm going to go through them one at a time.

Collecting rain water is illegal by state law in a some states in the Western US that operate on the prior-appropriation doctrine of water law. It's a stupid precedent, but it's not at all something that is banned in almost the entirety of the US. Indeed, in the US Virgin Islands, new construction is required to have rainwater harvesting systems, and - since the US Virgin Islands are a territory of the US - this requirement is more akin to a federal law than any of the laws banning rainwater collection.

Cannabis is the inverse of rainwater collection: it's banned by federal law, but not by some state laws. This is working its way through state legislatures, both as a hemp-legalization law as well as a marijuana-legalization law. But this one I'll give you as the "banned in the U.S.A." moniker.

Raw milk is banned by the FDA in interstate trade (which is the only way that the federal government can regulate a commodity), and so - again - I'll give you the "banned in the U.S.A." moniker, but - again - it's not so simple. State and local laws actually do allow the sale of raw milk in stores, but (at least in the State of Michigan, where I live) there are laws about how that milk is stored and sold. I seem to recall, too, that other states do allow direct sale of raw milk from the farmer to consumers. So, technically banned, but in reality legal in many places.

Unlicensed inland fishing is illegal under individual state laws, and - as far as I know - all 50 states require licenses to fish. This is technically not "banned in the U.S.A." under federal law, but is effectively "banned in the U.S.A." under state law, so it's a wash. As far as I know, the only federal laws about inland fishing bans regard endangered species, which are not what most people are fishing for. Now open ocean fishing requires licensing with the federal government, but that's not what this boy's doing, nor is it what most Americans do when they do fishing. Still, on open ocean fishing, the moniker "Banned in the U.S.A." is appropriate.

Finally, though, there is the tag line, "When did nature become illegal?" There are many points here that are interesting. As I showed above, none of these are always illegal, which means that they can all be regulated activities, which is different than an illegal activity. Changing the tag line to the more accurate, "When did nature become regulated?" actually does let you think about the history of human interaction with the land/air/water of the territory that would become the United States of America. If we presume a common cultural heritage that goes back to the Jamestown colony (and not Spanish colonization), then the answer to the question, "When did nature become regulated?" goes back to the Jamestown Charter of 1606.

However, even then, we are left with the other epidemiologically troubling word: "nature." I'm not going to even conjecture about the concept of "nature" in 1606 (although there are many books about it, including Death of Nature by Carolyn Merchant), but focus on the present day in the United States. The idea of "nature" usually is independent of the idea of "utility," and going by that tendency, only cannabis is actually "nature," since all the others are presented either explicitly in terms of utility (collecting rainwater, unlicensed fishing) or implicitly in terms of social utility (milk as we use it in society - raw or not - is a commodity and not a natural product). Indeed, even cannabis - if grown for the purpose of medical or industrial use - will no longer be of "nature" either, but another commodity, like milk. And this definition of "nature" is not even one that discusses nature as an interconnected relationship between organisms; the ecological perspective of nature (of which there are many books written as well).

In sum, the picture is technically correct in a very narrow reading of the terms, "nature," "illegal," and "U.S.A." Changing "illegal" to "regulated," recognizing the federalist structure of U.S. government, and - further - being very generous with the definition of "nature," the short answer is, "In 1606." The specific dates for the individual points, though, are - I'm sure - available if you search for them.

More on Georgia Border Dispute: No Claim for Georgia?

From The Chattanoogan:

...[In] March 1972, just after the [Civil War train] "General" had been given by the courts to the State of Georgia despite Chattanooga’s objection, Rep. Robert G. “Bob” Peters of Ringgold[, GA] had issued the resolution to accept the current border. (No reference cited)

He simply felt that bringing up the border issue would do no good other than to create ill will between the two states.

The Peters’ resolution was approved by a vote of 116-12.

In a prophetic statement during the 1972 Georgia House vote, Rep. Thomason did say that the resolution would forever end any future negotiations between Tennessee and Georgia over the border dispute.

After the Georgia resolution passed, Tennessee also passed a resolution [by Rep. Al Edgar] accepting the Georgia peace offer. (No reference cited)

So, it seems to me that (thanks to the efforts of John Shearer) this will eventually become a moot point again (until the next time). Based on this article, both Georgia and Tennessee passed resolutions saying that the border separating the states that existed in 1972 would be the permanent border of the states. Even without having seen the actual resolutions in both legislatures, it would be fair to assume that there was no time frame after which there would be re-negotiation of this resolution.

Therefore, the recent House Resolution 1206 - and supporting Senate Resolution 587 - in the Georgia legislature should be struck down by the state supreme court, since it failed to overturn the 1972 resolution. (Of course, my lack of procedural law knowledge is a drawback for me at this point.) Of course, the Georgia House and Senate can easily draft a set of bills that seek to repeal the 1972 resolution, and - further - have it's effective date pre-date the passage of HR1206 and SR587.

Of course, this brings up two questions. First of all, shouldn't Georgia start its border dispute with North Carolina, where the 1.1 mile 'hiccup' starts? I mean, if this is where the origin of the "mismapping," shouldn't the first claim be from this point westward? More importantly, if Georgia can win a border dispute with North Carolina, it will strengthen its case against Tennessee (against which it apparently has several small legal saber-rattlings).

The second question it brings up is exactly how much of a legal expert Brad Craver really is. I mean, if he didn't know of the passing of this legislative resolution back in 1972, then what is the basis of his expertise. If he did know of this resolution back in 1972, then where are his professional ethics in not bringing it up in his until-recently confidential report?

However, the Walker County Messenger doesn't mention the resolutions from either Georgia or Tennessee.

1947-71: Many governors of Georgia contemplated reopening the border dispute but none did.
1971: The Georgia General Assembly enacts a joint resolution calling for Georgia governor Jimmy Carter to talk with the Tennessee governor about resolving the border dispute.
[1972: Resolutions in GA and TN to settle border dispute mentioned in Shearer's piece.]
2005: Dade County officials sign an agreement with the water firm of Brown and Caldwell in Walnut Creek, Calif., to research the possibility of an agreement with Tennessee to pump water along a pipeline into Dade from the Tennessee River.

So there are a few reasons I can think of as to why the resolutions in both GA and TN are not mentioned in the Messenger's time-line. 1) They couldn't find it either (which might indicate that Mr. Shearer's source is wrong, or that he's lying), 2) they purposefully omitted it (shameful, to be sure), or 3) they found it but didn't realize what they had (shameful, but not as bad as #2).

In any case, John Shearer brings up one other point in his piece. This time from the Supreme Court:

The [March 9, 1972] article also pointed out that the U.S. Supreme Court had some years before ruled that state boundaries as already established would not be questioned, even if the boundary was different from what was intended on original grants. (No reference given)

Again, sorry Georgia. Apparently, the Supreme Court has already ruled against you. However, it is strange that something this important would be forgotten about by the legal clerks in the Tennessee government.

However, the Messenger piece doesn't show any Supreme Court decision. This might be because they didn't include any Supreme Court searches when putting together their time-line (shameful, imho) or they omitted it (very shameful).

Anyway, the Chattanoogan provides a good article, but it leaves out important references that call into question the veracity of the source. Therefore, if Mr. Shearer could present the following references, it would be very nice, thank you very much:

1. The legislative resolution bill numbers passed by the TN legislature in 1972.
2. The legislative resolution bill numbers passed by the GA legislature in 1972.
3. The Supreme Court decision of the boundaries issue from "some years before" the 1972 article.

Oh, and while he's at it, if he could e-mail them to the Walker County Messenger as well as the Georgia state house, that would be very useful.

More on the Georiga border shift

Today, the AJC reports that last week's border shift resolution from the Georgia legislature is really a serious bid for more water. Georgia governor Sonny Perdue is apparently going to pursue this course of action (legislative resolution notwithstanding):

“I don’t think it’s a gimmick,” Perdue told reporters a few hours after his [Google Earth] demonstration [showing that moving the border to the 35th parallel will place the NW corner of the state right in the middle of Nickajack Lake]. But the enthusiasm the governor showed in the basement had shifted to a diplomatic practicality.

“I think we have to be very careful in the way we proceed in this effort. As it gets more and more serious, the people of Tennessee get more and more concerned. There was probably a better way to do this — legislation’s a sort of in-your-face sort of thing,” the governor said.

All of this appears to be part of a behind-the-scenes strategy to sustain the growth of the state of Georgia, specifically Atlanta. There's a link to the confidential report at the AJC.

[Brad Carver - a utilities lawyer in Atlanta - and a water expert at the University of Mississippi] drew up a confidential, 19-page memo that outlined the history of Georgia’s 190-year dispute with Tennessee, and offered advice on how Georgia might finally win the argument and gain access to a river with 15 times the flow of the Chattahoochee River at Buford Dam.

“As the drought got worse, this made more and more sense. We can’t conserve our way to a solution,” Carver said. The state is growing too fast, he said — and the only alternatives are desalination plants on the Atlantic coast, and the Tennessee River.

I personally think this is a perfect example of mindless "training-speak". By "training-speak" I mean the inability of people to think creatively within their own field. Carver is a utilities lawyer. I don't think he is an expert on water conservation strategies, modernist urban planning, watershed management, conjunctive management, water economics, or anything other than utilities law. The AJC doesn't list who the "water expert" is. However, I doubt that it is a person who is an expert on the subjects I listed above, either.

Both these people are experts in their own field. I'm sure that Carver is a good attorney. I'm sure the "water expert" is a "water expert." However, I've met too many civil engineers who can't look past their training to see alternative solutions that lie outside their field of expertise. Rigorous training (and success in one's field due to that training) has a tendency of narrowing one's vision, and looking at the world through their own lens of training.

Carver stated something that I've known for over 10 years (apparently the message hasn't gotten to Carver): that continued growth cannot be sustained. This is the lesson of Los Angeles and the Southwest (just read Cadillac Desert). One cannot (yet) overcome the "shortcomings" of nature and place, unless one wishes to invest ever-more into sustaining infrastructures. Atlanta cannot be sustained on a river the size of the Chattahoochee alone, unless there is a serious effort to conserve water (which Atlanta really hasn't done yet - sorry, but you haven't). The statement, "We can't conserve our way to a solution," is a mindset from the 1950s, and indicates (to me) that the man hasn't a grasp of how natural water systems and urban growth work (without the requirement of aforementioned infrastructure demands).

Let me ask what will truly happen if Atlanta gets the water from the Tennessee River? How much will the construction of that pipeline cost? What will be its maintenance cost? Who will profit from its construction? Who will lose? The costs of building the pipeline will make someone's company quite profitable. The costs of maintaining the pipeline will likely require a tax increase to pay for all the maintenance engineers. Will the state levy taxes from all citizens, or only the citizens of Atlanta? If all citizens have to pay for its construction, will all citizens benefit from the pipeline's construction? (Of course not.) If only Atlanta residents have to pay for its construction, will water rights remain exclusive to the city? (Probably.)

Will Atlanta be required to have a return flow back to the Tennessee River (thus making it a federal issue)? If so, then return flows monitoring means that Georgia will now have another level of federal government oversight.

What about all the people living across the border from Georgia, in Tennessee. Will Georgia purchase their homes to allow them to "move back" to Tennessee, their home state? If so, what will Georgia do with all their purchased properties? Possibly sell it to some real estate broker. (Who profits here, we wonder?) Will Georgia allow them to effectively remain Tenneseeans (thus having two standards of residency within the state)?

Meanwhile, the Chattanooga Times Free Press reports that the Tennessee legislature has introduced a resolution (HJR0919) criticizing Georgia's resolution. However, the Times reports:

... a Georgia lawmaker who helped engineer the Peach State resolution warned Tennessee would be wise to “join with us in resolving the border dispute in a neighborly fashion.”

“Appointing boundary line commissioners and beginning discussions would be better, all the way around, than litigation,” said Georgia state Sen. David Shafer, R-Duluth. “It would be a mistake to quickly dismiss the idea of discussions.”

Ahh, the wonders of the "fences make good neighbors" phrase are brought into the sharp glare of reality. Apparently, if one neighbor feels the other neighbor has their land (by original deed), the first neighbor feels allowed to take it over (regardless that 190 years have passed and this could set a dangerous precedent if won in court).

Meanwhile, there is still no word on the eventual water-sharing agreement between GA, FL, and NC that was supposed to happen on February 15.

Tennessee working out a retort

From the Chattanooga Times Free Press:

Tennessee officials said Thursday that drought-parched Georgia lawmakers legally are all wet in their attempts to claim part of the Tennessee River on grounds the border was drawn sloppily in 1818.

Tennessee state Rep. Henry Fincher, D-Cookeville, said his research of several legal cases indicates Georgia officials would not succeed if they sought to challenge the current border before the U.S. Supreme Court, which has original jurisdiction in state boundary disputes.

What really gets my goat is what Georgia Senator Shafer (one of the initial Georga state senators to draft the resolution passed yesterday) said on Wednesday, “This is a serious effort to secure our [Georgia's] border and begin a discussion of water sharing.”

If this is a "serious effort," then why did Shafer wait until 2008 to introduce his resolution? If a nearly 200-year-old border dispute was a "serious effort," then why wait a whole seven years of being in the senate before raising it? Furthermore, why does it suddenly become a "discussion of water sharing" when Georgia can't figure out how to share water among its own users? When does "water sharing" mean "we will steal your water and when you complain about it, we'll say that you don't want to share with us"? And why is "a discussion of water sharing" contingent on on "securing [Georgia's] border"? Shouldn't you be thinking about water management (of which water sharing is but one option) anyway? (By the way, wasn't Georgia supposed to be talking about a regional water-sharing agreement with Florida and Alabama, anyway? And wasn't that supposed to be completed on February 15?)

The Georgia General Assembly attempt at a water grab from Lake Lanier was already shut down by the Army Corps of Engineers who manage the dam for the primary purposes of flood control and hydropower (the provision of municipal water to Atlanta was an additional incidental use that was approved by Congress - sorry Atlanta). In the meantime, I cannot find evidence on the interwebs that the Georgia General Assembly has made a real good-faith effort to figure out how to use water conservatively during a time of regional drought. (Makes you wonder - what with a time extension on water-sharing agreements - just how good these closed-door policy decisions are really going. "Smoke-filled rooms" anyone?)

There's a great timeline (through article progression) at the Chattanooga Times, so if you want to check out some of the previous stories on this (prior to this iteration of this silly little mess of cross-border politics), go and check it out.

Georgia Legislature passes bills to move the border! (Urgh.)

Apparently, the Georgia Legislature passed two bills to move the Georgia state line north 1 mile into the state of Tennessee.

House Resolution 1206 passed overwhelmingly (136-26, with 3 not voting and 9 excused). Senate Resolution 587 passed overwhelmingly (52-0, with 3 not voting and 1 excused). This is the first bit of both the House and Senate resolutions (my emphasis added):

WHEREAS, the northern border of the State of Georgia and the southern border of the states of North Carolina and Tennessee lies at the 35th parallel, north of the southernmost bank of the Tennessee River; and

WOW. I'm jaw-on-the-floor amazed for two reasons. The first reason is that this is (at least to me) a blatant water grab on the part of Georgia. Why? Well, because the root of this iteration of this border dispute, at least in much of what I've read, is about the water in the Tennessee River, and it seems to be supported in the first statement of both resolutions. The reason why Georgia wants to have all this water is because there is a drought, and the state hasn't taken any real measures to effect conservation measures.

The second reason I'm amazed is that the bill passed so overwhelmingly in both chambers. (There wasn't even dissent in the Senate!) I'm not an expert on Georgia Constitutional law, but it seems to me that it passed both chambers with a greater than 2/3 majority, meaning that (if Georgia is like other states) even if the Governor doesn't sign it, the resolutions are passed into law.

At the beginning of it all, Tennessee Gov. Phil Bredesen (D) asked if this resolution was a joke. Rgardless of whether Georgia's governor signs these resolutions, I wouldn't be suprised if Tennessee sues Georgia in Federal Court if any real action is taken on this. Right now, Tennesseean legislators are "trying not to take it too seriously":

“I think they’re embarrassing themselves, and I think it’s a waste of taxpayers’ money to have them going into session and doing such silly things on taxpayers’ time,” said Rep. Gerald McCormick, R-Chattanooga

I was only able to find one reaction in N. Carolina about this in today's papers, and that from Representative Roger West from NC's 120th District. (North Carolina's border with Georgia will also be affected, as it is here that the 1.1 mile "notch" south begins.)

"As long as that line's been established, I can't see them overturning it now. I think they're serious about getting access to the water in the Tennessee River. They should be talking with Tennessee about buying water. I don't think I'd take on a battle to move the state line."

If Gov. Bredesen doesn't cooperate with Georgia's "request", the border dispute decision will go straight to the Supreme Court (since it is a border dispute between two states of the Union), and it will be an interesting case to follow. (Or maybe not so interesting, if the Supreme Court decides not to pick it up.)

Now, both resolutions have words to the effect that this border dispute was brought up several times (1887, 1947, 1974), and the US Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit suggested that there be some sort of resolution between the states:

WHEREAS, by suggestion of the United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, the Chairman of the Tennessee Public Service Commission and the Chairman of the Georgia Public Service Commission agreed in 1974 to reserve resolution of the general boundary issue until a later date (15 FERC, p. 61240), the resolution of which has never been reached; andWHEREAS, notwithstanding these authorizations and directions, the boundary lines have never been accurately resurveyed and marked and remain in doubt; and

I'm not sure what the actual wording was of that Court of Appeals judicial suggestion, or how much legal weight it holds (in terms of the United States Constitution), but I really wonder if Georgia really will go through with this whole thing. True, this whole thing started off as sabre-rattling on Georgia's part. The overwhelming passage of these twin resolutions out of the Georgia Legislature may the be equivalent of unsheathing that metaphorical sabre, readying for battle. I hope cooler minds prevail. I hope Georgians realize what happens when one outgrows (flagrantly wastes) one's available water resources, and pass some bills that really get at water conservation. If they don't then I feel that this chapter in the border dispute will easily be won by Tennessee (and they might be able to push for closure, once and for all).

Georgia loses a water grab attempt on Lake Lanier

From treehugger.com

Yes, Lake [Sydney] Lanier is totally within the state of Georgia. Yes, it is a major water source for the city of Atlanta. No, the state cannot just take more water from the reservoir. Buford Dam - which is responsible for the existence of the lake - was built and managed by the Army Corps of Engineers. Therefore, its management falls under the purview of the federal government (unless I'm seriously wrong about my understanding here). Federal government projects usually have some sort of cross-state nature justifying their creation; in this case hydropower and flood management (the usual two justifications of USACoE dam projects). Its use for recreation and drinking water for Atlanta were not primary mandates of the dam's creation. Therefore, the city of Atlanta (nor the state of GA) can demand more water from the dam, as watering Atlanta was not the purpose for which the dam was built (see how the logic works here?).

I guess Georgia's got to really figure out what it will do with the available water resources to which it has access, and play nice with downstream users.

(There still hasn't been any announcement about what will happen with Georgia's massive land-grab/border rectification. However, I really don't think that it has a snowflake's chance in Gehenna.)

Georgia can't move its border, right?

UPDATE (2/26/08): Georgia says it is really going to pursue this one. Tennessee introduces a resolution meant to counter Georgia's previously passed resolution.

UPDATE (2/22/08): Tennessee is stating that it won't go along with the resolutions passed in Georgia. I wonder why this is even happening.

UPDATE (2/21/08): Georgia's legislature passed two resolutions to have the border resurveyed, and have the whole thing wind up in the Supreme Court if TN and NC don't agree to go along.

UPDATE (2/15/08): Georgia tried another water grab - demanding extra water from the Lake Lanier Reservoir. That one got shut-down in court.

The state of Georgia is trying to move its border 1.1 miles north to intersect with the Tennessee River.

Wait, can they do that?

Um.... No. I don't think that the state legislature of Georgia can move its border. It was my understanding that it is the Federal government that can create the borders of new states of the Union from Territorial areas.

What gets me is this:
"The Tennessee River was part of Georgia long before there was a state of Tennessee," said Sen. David Shafer (R-Duluth), the resolution's sponsor. "I don't understand why a water-sharing agreement can't be worked out between the two states."

In this paragraph, Senator Shafer says two things that appear to be diametrically opposed. First, he says that the Tennessee River historically belongs to Georgia. Then he says that water-sharing shouldn't be a topic of concern for Georgia and Tennessee. What? If Georgia was supposed to have a border 1.1 miles to the north, why didn't Georgia shout bloody murder when the border was first drawn, or when the "mistake" was first discovered? Why wait until a year into a major drought before considering the possibility of moving the border? Surely, the silence of 211 years (Tennessee was made a state in 1796) provides some backing for Tennessee's claim on its borders?

Shifting the border of the state would require that the Congress of the United States approve the border shift (unlikely to happen). Even if it did happen, the approved border shift would (based on my understanding of the law) require the border shift to be retroactive, since a shift in the border alone would not guarantee Georgia all the water that is in Nickajack Lake. Since the lake was created by the TVA, the TVA has the right to apportion water as it feel necessary. If Georgia doesn't get a retroactive border shift to before the creation of the TVA, then Georgia's water claim post-dates the TVA's water management strategies, and Georgia would have to go to court to fight for those water rights.

All of this for some water? Why doesn't Georgia suck it up, realize that it is in a major drought? Why doesn't it realize that you can't sustain a major city like Atlanta on a river like the Chattahoochee? When are they going to come out with a realistic water conservation strategy, instead of a set of partial-measures?

And if this is all for water, then Georgia isn't seriously considering all the implications of all the property tax structures, service provisions, congressional redistricting, census tallies, etc that would have to out when such a border shift were to happen? Does Sen. Shafer consider these in his bill?

(Just as a side-point, the graphic in the AJC is wrong. It includes areas west of the Georgia/Alabama border. So far as I know, Alabama is not arguing about the movement of the its border with Tennessee.) I redid the map, showing a more-proper proposed border shift. (Seriously, the AJC needs to find someone that knows how to use GIS!)