Water reallocation in the ACT River Systems

The chapter 8 of the book "Interstate Water Allocation in Alabama, Florida, and Georgia: New Issues, New Methods, New Models" by Jeffrey L. Jordan and Aaron T. Wolf describes alternative future scenarios for ACF and ACT basin management. The four alternatives are:

1. No-Action Alternative

2. Georgia Alternative

3. Sustainability Alternative

4. Alabama Alternative

1. No-Action Alternative

This is a base-line scenario for comparing the alternative scenarios. Under this scenario, the system is managed under the current principles. No adjustments to respond to the future demands and no change to the interbasin transfers. The specific assumptions under this scenario is given in page 160, 167, 173.

2. Georgia Alternative

This scenario is a composite of a number of proposals brought forward by the agencies in Georgia giving preference to the Georgia demands. The adjustmentst for future demands speculated by the Georgia agencies are included. Alternative growth trends are assumed. Georgia water demand is assumed to grow accroding to the projections by the Georgia agencies, while Alabama demand remains as projected in the comprehensive study. The specific assumptions under this scenario is given in page 162, 169, 174.

3. Sustainability Alternative

This objectives of this scenario are sustainability of the water uses and the equitable management of the basin from the system-wide perspective. It assums that the  growth-trend projections in the comprehensive study are acurate and the conservation measures at least partly required by law are implemented for communities, industries and agriculture. Assumes reservoir systems are adjusted for better eco-system stability. The specific assumptions under this scenario is given in page 164, 171, 176.

4. Alabama Alternative

This scenario is used for ACT river system only. The main principle adopted is to adjust reservoir operations to move reliably meet consumptive demands across basin, while maintaining hydro-power generation and navigation as much as possible. The specific assumptions under this scenario is given in page 165, 172.

5. Ecological Strategy

The argument goes that the same management paradigm that has created the ACF ecological crisis cannot solve it. In conventional water management the criteria for resource extraction is simply the human need for the water and the remainder represents the new flow regimen.

River systems go through periods of varied flow, floods, and droughts. These natural variations are essential to the continued function of highly developed and complicated river ecosystems. These ecosystem processes are far more complex than can be identified and mapped. Efforts to determine keystone species and tailor flows to a minimal level of support have not been adequate to protect the larger ecologies of river systems.

Work on developing flow models that provide for required ecosystem services and also show the amount of water that can be utilized for human needs have been developed and implemented around the world. The basics of flow management are that they need to continue to support cyclical flooding and varied flow characteristics that the river system has developed around but can reduce the frequency of minor flooding and reduce the duration of peak flooding. Instead of skimming off the top we should be shaving off the peaks.

These hydrologic models of flow require a team of experts and anywhere from several months to several years to develop.

Ecological concern has ranged from nonexistent to minimum flows to sustain certain species to a ‘holistic’ approach of supporting a functioning and complete ecosystem by providing an approximation of natural flow characteristics and by extension demonstrating what water is available for human needs as surplus form the ecological watershed system rather than the other way around.