{
  "id": "RL34440",
  "type": "CRS Report",
  "typeId": "REPORTS",
  "number": "RL34440",
  "active": false,
  "source": "EveryCRSReport.com, University of North Texas Libraries Government Documents Department",
  "versions": [
    {
      "source": "EveryCRSReport.com",
      "id": 344666,
      "date": "2008-07-22",
      "retrieved": "2016-04-07T03:16:31.818875",
      "title": "Apalachicola-Chattahoochee-Flint Drought: Species and Ecosystem Management",
      "summary": "Drought in the Southeast has brought congressional attention to an ongoing interstate water conflict among Alabama, Florida, and Georgia over water allocation and management of the Apalachicola-Chattahoochee-Flint (ACF) basin. Reservoir drawdown and predictions for a continued drought have Georgia\u2019s upper basin municipal and industrial customers concerned about depleting their principal (in some cases, their only) water supply, Lake Lanier in northern Georgia. Alabama, Florida, and Georgia\u2019s lower basin interests are concerned about sustaining river flows to meet their municipal, agricultural, electrical, recreational, and ecosystem needs. In addition, four federally protected species, once widely distributed but now confined to the lower basin, are caught in the controversy.\nThe issue for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) is how to manage ACF federal reservoirs, now at record low levels, to meet needs in the upper and lower basin equitably. The challenge includes complying with federal law (e.g., the Endangered Species Act (ESA)); minimizing harm to the ACF basin and Apalachicola Bay species, ecosystems, recreation, fishing, and oyster industry; and providing flows for hydropower and thermoelectric cooling, while also meeting water needs of the Atlanta region, other communities, and industries.\nTo varying degrees, the ACF drought has lasted for several years, depleting water supplies, with Lake Lanier being the largest source for downstream needs. The Corps has released water at various times from Lake Lanier to meet minimum flow requirements in the lower basin\u2014to the consternation of upper basin users. As an emergency drought response in 2007, the Corps began to reduce flows in the Apalachicola River, thereby slowing the drawdown of Lake Lanier, though heavy rains in early 2008 in the lower basin temporarily halted extra releases from Lake Lanier. The Corps\u2019 Revised Interim Operating Plan (RIOP) calls for three operational seasons, contingencies for drought operations, and additional water storage before and after a drought phase. It differs from previous plans in allowing water flows to fall to a specified level during drought without additional ESA consultation. In addition, a previous agreement to limit the rate of reduction in flow (to allow species to move to deeper water) will end under certain conditions. Judging that the Corps\u2019 actions would not jeopardize the continued existence of listed species or adversely modify their critical habitat, the Fish and Wildlife Service issued a Biological Opinion on June 1, 2008, that approved the RIOP.\nFour species protected under the Endangered Species Act\u2014three mussels and a sturgeon\u2014depend on Apalachicola River flows. The impacts of the RIOP on these species continue to be the subject of study and debate. Yet the four are not the focus of debate. Rather the law itself acts as a hammer, forcing parties to reach decisions that may produce winners and losers. As climate change and population growth continue to affect ecosystems, ESA controversies may be at the center of still more stormy debates. Responses of the various parties in the ACF and species protection controversy may presage responses to future river management controversies in other regions.",
      "type": "CRS Report",
      "typeId": "REPORTS",
      "active": false,
      "formats": [
        {
          "format": "HTML",
          "encoding": "utf-8",
          "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/RL34440",
          "sha1": "93dd07e3020a72133b03912d7479862088d8982f",
          "filename": "files/20080722_RL34440_93dd07e3020a72133b03912d7479862088d8982f.html",
          "images": null
        },
        {
          "format": "PDF",
          "encoding": null,
          "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/pdf/RL34440",
          "sha1": "883abaa19dff2e1fc077df56e1cd71484dd269d5",
          "filename": "files/20080722_RL34440_883abaa19dff2e1fc077df56e1cd71484dd269d5.pdf",
          "images": null
        }
      ],
      "topics": []
    },
    {
      "source": "University of North Texas Libraries Government Documents Department",
      "sourceLink": "https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc820369/",
      "id": "RL34440_2008Apr09",
      "date": "2008-04-09",
      "retrieved": "2016-03-19T13:57:26",
      "title": "Apalachicola-Chattahoochee-Flint Drought: Species and Ecosystem Management",
      "summary": null,
      "type": "CRS Report",
      "typeId": "REPORT",
      "active": false,
      "formats": [
        {
          "format": "PDF",
          "filename": "files/20080409_RL34440_cb4252998cd36926872039e95bee531e04a7ebae.pdf"
        },
        {
          "format": "HTML",
          "filename": "files/20080409_RL34440_cb4252998cd36926872039e95bee531e04a7ebae.html"
        }
      ],
      "topics": []
    }
  ],
  "topics": [
    "Environmental Policy"
  ]
}