Divided Interests on Water Policy Such Interests Mean the Plan Serves As a Beginning, Rather Than an Ending.

By BRANDON LARRABEE

ATLANTA – Even if the statewide water policy clears the few legislative hurdles remaining between the measure and Gov. Sonny Perdue’s desk, its passage will not end the legislature’s fluid debate on the precious resource.

The policy itself is far too vague for some, doesn’t move aggressively enough for others, and yet governs a liquid that controls the economic fortunes of communities across the state.

“There will be additional legislation on water,” House Speaker Glenn Richardson, R-Hiram, said during the Jan. 18 debate. “This is not our last conversation on water.”

Not by a long shot.

Metro Atlanta legislators are pressing for a bill making it easier to build reservoirs and to build them more quickly. House and Senate members from downstream communities are urging the General Assembly to pass laws protecting their water supply from the thirst of the state’s largest communities. And environmentalists don’t trust assurances from Perdue’s office that the state will pay for needed water planning to put the policy in place even if the budget for the coming fiscal year, which begins July 1, doesn’t specifically include the expense.

A FLOOD OF BILLS

Most of the ideas currently floating through the capitol come from downstream lawmakers, who want assurances for their constituents that the policy isn’t simply legal cover for a massive water grab by Atlanta, caught in the grips of a historic drought.

Among the list of concerns ticked off by critics of the plans are:

– The boundaries of water planning districts don’t exactly mirror the state’s river basins.

Lawmakers are concerned that the current districts often divide the upper portions of river basins from the lower parts and could dilute ability of downstream communities to counter metro Atlanta’s plans.

The district including Atlanta straddles five of the state’s six major river basins, upstream of much of the state.

“They will control those rivers, and if they decide to act to put a stranglehold on the flow down, there will be nothing, nothing that those of us downstream will be able to do about it,” Rep. Mark Hatfield, R-Waycross, said during the House debate.

Some legislators would redraw the boundaries to follow watersheds exactly, regardless of county lines, though no legislation to do that has been introduced. Others are looking at proposals that would spell out how counties could leave one district and join another.

– The plan conflicts with current state law.

Under the bill creating the Water Council – a panel of lawmakers, citizens and state agency heads that crafted the policy – the water plan is not supposed to conflict with state law.

But critics say it does just that, and worry that any differences between the law and the policy would be resolved in metro Atlanta’s favor. They argue that several technical conflicts should have prompted lawmakers to make needed changes to the law before passing the policy.

“If we are doing something that we know we need to fix, let’s fix it at the same time that we vote on the resolution,” said Rep. Doug McKillip, D-Athens.

Those overhauls could still be approved.

– More legislative oversight is needed.

A measure proposed by Sen. Bill Cowsert, R-Athens, would create a legislative oversight committee that could put a hold on any rules the Department of Natural Resources’ board approves dealing with the water plan. That hold would last until the General Assembly and the governor got a chance to approve or veto the changes.

Many state agencies that pass rules and regulations already face that sort of oversight.

“I would prefer that the buck stop with elected officials rather than appointed officials,” Cowsert said.

His proposal is scheduled to be heard by the Senate Natural Resources and Environment Committee -Wednesday. It is co-sponsored by committee Chairman Ross Tolleson, R-Perry, and Senate Majority Leader Tommie Williams, R-Lyons.

– Perdue’s office doesn’t rule out or in the possibility of his signing bills affecting the plan.

“This administration … is actively involved in providing information and feedback to legislators on the water plan,” press secretary Bert Brantley said in an e-mail. “We look forward to continuing to work with them and make the right decisions in planning for Georgia’s future growth.”

A QUESTION OF FUNDING

Meanwhile, some are questioning Perdue’s assurances that his office has “identified” the funds to begin the more in-depth planning called for by the water policy without actually earmarking the funds in the state budget.

According to Brantley, state and federal funds would provide $11.1 million in the coming fiscal year, the first installment of a three-year, $38 million plan.

“There is no line item because this is the amount needed in the first year of implementation, and we could do it out of existing funds,” Brantley said. “Future years will likely need additional funding, and we’ll look at that as we put together future budget recommendations.”

But House Appropriations Chairman Ben Harbin, R-Evans, said he isn’t entirely comfortable without the source of the money being spelled out in the budget. Harbin voted against the plan because of concerns about interbasin transfers, he said.

“Overall, the plan’s a good plan, but the plan doesn’t work if the funding’s not there,” he said.

Environmentalists also are uncomfortable with the lack of a specified source for the money. Neill Herring, a lobbyist for the Sierra Club, pointed out that state agencies routinely outline their spending of federal money in the budget and could do the same for the water plans requirements.

“All we get is, ‘The check’s in the mail,’ ” Herring said. “We haven’t seen the check.”

Just one of many arguments that is likely to keep water front and center in the weeks to come.brandon.larrabee@morris.com (678) 977- 3709

(c) 2008 Florida Times Union. Provided by ProQuest Information and Learning. All rights Reserved.