Litigation, which is the only rational alternative to this, has a track record of automatically ending up in the Supreme Court. Some water litigation in the West ranges between 10 and 30 years. The longest Western water litigation is currently in its 50th year. Now, that is not a way to solve public policy problems; and I just want to say I came here today to commend Chairman Barr for being willing to work on this, to commend Commissioner Thomas and his co-commissioners for the time they put in as citizens far beyond any possible compensation or public honor and to appeal to the three States to get back on track with a scientifically based approach, to use the right kind of modeling and to understand that there is a very simple set of principles here.

Apalachicola Bay has to receive enough water not to be in a catastrophe; the States of Georgia and Alabama have to agree to deliver that water in a quality which preserves the Bay; and we then have to look at the Atlanta metropolitan area, which is the largest consumer of water, in that context.

And I would start by saying that the disgraceful-and I use this word deliberately-the disgraceful mismanagement of water and sewage by the City of Atlanta is a prime reason that no one downstream ever feels comfortable relying on good will, and I attended my first as a minority Member, I attended my first hearing on Atlanta mismanagement of the water system in 1981, chaired by then Democratic Member Elliott Levitas, and this has been an ongoing process. So I would say the Atlanta region is going to have to think through what does it have to do to reuse water, what does it have to do to be efficient with water and to understand that, in a drought year, you cannot design a 50-year plan which is going to say in a drought year we are going to destroy Apalachicola Bay.

I would say to Florida, it is to their advantage to come out in public, share the information and work together, because litigation is to the disadvantage of both the citizens of the United States and the citizens of all three States.

Finally, I would commend the Chairman, because if you note in my letter to Chairman Lancaster and I think the to Secretary Lancaster, rather-and I think this was a point you made several times recently, Mr. Barr-this legislation emphasizes the full participation of Federal agencies during the development of the allocation formula. Federal agencies must have equal participation in all technical working groups and meetings in which the terms and conditions of the allocation formula are negotiated. And we also go on to say that there will be input from the interested public.

So I think this is a complex process. I commend the commissioners for the work they have done. I am, frankly, more than discouraged by the State's behavior on a parochial basis. I think it is very short-sighted, and I would reemphasize this is an American Federal issue of interest to the Federal Government and a totally appropriate topic for this Subcommittee to hold a hearing on. Mr. BARR. Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

I am reminded once again of Jarndyce v. Jarndyce, and we may have already exceeded that with some of the Western cases. I had forgotten that they dragged on for 50 years. But it truly is one of our goals in this Subcommittee to try and avoid that and try and

identify some of the problems that have cropped up that have given rise to what has happened or hasn't happened so far.

[No prepared statement was submitted for this hearing by Mr. Gingrich.]

Mr. BARR. But I agree with you, Mr. Speaker, that one of the bright lights in this process is the work of our next witness, the Honorable Lindsay Thomas, who is our Federal Commissioner and is playing an increasingly important and, I think, positive role in the negotiation between the three States in ensuring that all Federal interests are adequately represented and addressed.

Mr. Thomas.

STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE LINDSAY THOMAS, FEDERAL COMMISSIONER, ALABAMA-COOSA-TALLAPOOSA AND RIVER BASIN

APALACHICOLA-CHATTAHOOCHEE-FLINT

COMMISSIONS

Mr. THOMAS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am pleased to have the opportunity to appear before the Committee today as a Federal

Mr. BARR. Is your speaker on, Lindsay?

Mr. THOMAS. Sorry. Now I have it engaged. Thank you. Let me go back.

I am pleased to have this opportunity, Mr. Chairman—and thank you for your opening comments-to appear before the Committee today as Federal Commissioner of the ACT and ACF River Basin Compacts.

I want to stress, though, from the very start that in no way do I see myself as the final authority on these matters that we will be discussing but that I work with a very capable group of Federal employees and the Federal Commissioner Pete Conroy, who is with us today, who comprise the Federal team. So my response to your question and, for that matter, any statement that I make here today will be founded on the basis of the knowledge and the understandings reached through this group's effort.

The task before us is tremendous, both in scope and in complexity, how to share and steward wisely the surface waters of the confluence of nearly 40,000 square miles of Southeastern river basins. Nothing of this scope has ever been accomplished east of the Mississippi, to my knowledge, but I can assure the members of this panel it will not be the last challenge of this nature, whether we succeed or fail.

Inevitably our need for water for our people and our commerce is going to continue to grow. Neither can happen without water, and the simple truth is we don't manufacture or create one gallon or one ounce of water. We can only manage what is provided to us from the rain that falls on our watershed and is delivered into our basins and streams and aquifers.

Now, this would be much easier, I admit, if we were only apportioning the water, but if we are responsible in the actions that we take, the apportioning and the sharing and managing must be in balance with the needs of the natural resources within the life-sustaining confluences of these vast basins that are amongst the most priceless vestiges of the world that we have inherited and this continent of America that we live on. 40,000 square miles of complex

living systems, shared by three sovereign States, influenced by weather and growth and development and commerce and everything that happens within, and that is dependent upon the waters contained therein, three sovereign States, vital Federal concerns and needs, numerous congressional districts, numerous stakeholders of varying perspective and the vicissitudes of weather and rainfall patterns. Do I need to add political considerations as other influences?

Three governors must turn to the people of their States and say, I made the right decision for you and for future generations and our resources. Numerous Members of Congress feel the same sense of responsibility on this matter and rightly so.

The context that led to the formation of the compacts aren't going to go away, even if the rains are more bountiful than ever. We will either settle the challenge through the cooperative structure of the compacts, or we will fight over these compacts in the courts for these conflicts in the courts for what will be certainly years to come. A holistic and comprehensive plan for responsible usage and stewardship, or a legal battle that leaves most of us with longstanding knowledge and vested interest on the sidelines, those are the hard choices.

The fact that these compacts exist at all is evidence of the importance of these matters. They are a product of both State and Federal law and interstate cooperation, along, I might add, with the vital influence of one of the very members of this panel. Perhaps the fortunate timing itself smiled greatly upon this event as it unfolded. As most of us in this room, I am aware of the many accounts of the gentle persuasion of the gentleman from Georgia when the final details of this compact were being delicately put into place.

I look forward to your questions, Mr. Chairman, and to those of other Members of the Committee, and for the sake of time I will conclude very quickly, but here is my heartfelt message to the members of this panel. It is in the best interest of not only the States involved but the national interest as well that we reach a negotiated settlement. Although the process provided might not be perfect, I believe it can lead us to the success that is so badly needed; and by that I mean success for all of the sovereign parties and all of the environmental and economic and social interests that hang in the balance.

Can we do better than we have done, both from a Federal and State perspective? I have no doubt that we should try it, but we have come a long way, and we are doing better on all fronts, in my opinion.

Are we taking too long? Well, I don't know how long too long is, but as I have come to view as best I can all aspects of this complex equation I can tell you I remain patient and realistic.

To this panel, I would say that I have nothing but the greatest respect. I will do what I have always done, and that is to deliver the facts as I see them. I can say that on behalf of all of those with whom I work, because I have come to know and respect them as well, and I include the State officials and technicians when I make that remark. I would not come before this Committee with these comments if I felt that the compact had broken down or were fail

ing or if I felt that any of the parties involved, whether they are State or Federal, were not committed to an eventual success that embodies the very spirit of the compacts themselves.

It is my hope and my fervent prayer that we will proceed and that we will be successful and in doing so that we will show others who will surely follow in our path from other States in the American South that we can set our sights on noble goals and not just short-term, politically expedient solutions. If we accomplish this, then future generations that inherit the results of our efforts will not only be well served but will also be inspired to do the same for their posterity.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. BARR. Thank you very much, Mr. Thomas. We appreciate that.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Thomas follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF LINDSAY THOMAS

Congressman Barr, I am Lindsay Thomas. I appreciate the opportunity to be here and it is good to see you again. I currently am, and have served since 1998 as, the Federal Commissioner for the two Compacts which are the topics of your hearing today. As I hope you will sense, these are important topics to me.

At the outset, I want to underscore my appreciation for the commitment of Congress, the States, and the Federal agencies to the Compact process. Long deliberations from Congress and State Legislatures brought about the unusual opportunity to make lasting determinations about the future of regional water resources in the form of the Alabama-Coosa-Tallapoosa (ACT) River Basin Compact and the Apalachicola-Chattahoochee-Flint (ACF) River Basin Compact. In the Southeast region of the United States, our economy, our culture, and our society are structured around our water resources-particularly these crucial river basins. How we manage these priceless natural systems will determine the quality of life for years to come for us, and for future generations. As a former member of Congress, it is my sincere belief that this is a rare chance to resolve cooperatively a basinwide management plan that will provide economic prosperity while assuring the continued wise stewardship of these vital natural resources.

In my view, and in the view of the Federal agencies with which I work, continued commitment to the goal of a basinwide management is critical. We are facing an enormously complex situation and one with no better solution to our collective stewardship responsibilities for the resource than a cooperatively reached agreement. These are tremendous and vast resources we are discussing; the ACT and ACF River Basins combined span 40,000 square miles of the southeast. The Basins cover a diversity of habitats and support a wide variety of plants and animals while also providing for innumerable human uses. It is clear that our actions and decisions will affect many people and many interests for decades to come. One need look no further than the circumstances which gave rise to the Compacts to confirm that a collaborative solution that provides for long-term basinwide management holds the best potential for our region's well-being. Without a Compact solution, we sacrifice a hard-won and key advantage-the valuable opportunity for an effective alternative to piecemeal management of shared resources. In the interest of the Region, that is too high a sacrifice.

For a moment, assume the negotiations were to fail. What would follow? It is a certainty that there would be a long, expensive, and very arbitrary period of disputes and litigation. This alternative would cause the loss of the comprehensive basinwide focus that is essential to long-term wise stewardship decisions. Furthermore, if we were to turn to the court system for judgment, we would lose the advantage of the vast and valuable expertise that has come together to work towards the success of the Compacts. State and Federal experts in hydrology, economics, biology, recreation, drought, and all other fields pertinent to these negotiations are gathered now. A vast array of committed stakeholders is also engaged in the process at this time. It is my belief that these parties will go a long way in supporting a conscientious and balanced agreement, even if it comes in stages, with responsible commitment to follow through in implementation and to maintain ongoing wise stewardship. In the litigation arena, these stakeholders-the rightful stewards of these re

sources-will be left helplessly walking the sidelines or, perhaps worse, pitted against each other.

Without the cooperative framework that the Compacts foster, the alternative is an inadequate piecemeal arrangement. Although eventually each issue would no doubt be addressed, the results would likely range. At best, short term needs would divert limited technical and management assets away from long range goals essential to stable growth and protection of the natural systems. Or, at the worst, short term issues would grow to hold such prominence that widely embraced long-term resource goals would never receive attention or enjoy a common framework for debate. Long term stability and ecosystem health would suffer. Avoiding that result is the intrinsic value of a Compact-based solution.

I believe all involved parties also recognize the precedence of this process, not just for the Southeast, but for the entire American East and beyond. We must all work together, taking advantage of this hard won opportunity, to provide the vital leadership to show how shared resources and shared concerns ought to be managed. The Compacts provide the occasion to create a unique template where natural resources issues are addressed on a comprehensive level, involving all interested parties in proactive basinwide management. Success here will challenge and guide other regions to do the same.

Although I fully recognize that the undertaking is formidable and that, under the Compact, consensus is essential at the initial State "agreement" (Article VII(a)) stage, I have continued to underscore that the States do not face the task alone. The Federal team has continued to offer assistance to the States in public settings, in informational discussions, providing technical evaluation, affording technical assistance, offering reactions to their evolving concepts, and, more recently-because I thought the time had been reached-setting forth a more active federal role. Of course, the formulative stage of the allocation formula is addressed primarily in Article VII (a) of the Compacts. The purpose is simple: The parties are to develop an allocation formula for equitably apportioning the surface waters of the ACF [ACT] Basin among the states; and, they are to do so, while protecting the water quality, ecology and biodiversity of the ACF [ACT], as provided in the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. (1251 et seq., the Endangered Species Act, 16 U.S.C. (1532, et seq., the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899, 33 U.S.C. {(401 et seq., and other applicable federal laws

Article VII (a) provides that, when an allocation formula for a basin is unanimously approved by the State Commissioners, an "agreement" among the States arises. That allocation formula agreement becomes effective upon receipt by the Commission of a letter of concurrence from the Federal Commissioner or, in the occasion of the Federal Commissioner electing not to send a letter of nonconcurrence within 255 days. However, if a letter of nonconcurrence from the Federal Commissioner is sent, and all parties are not able to renegotiate a solution to federal concerns, then Article VIII(a)(4) provides that the Basin's Compact will terminate. Of course, as Federal Commissioner, I want to do everything I can. consistent with the Compacts, to avoid that result. To facilitate a resolution of differences, the Compacts provide that my reasons for nonconcurrence are to be set forth specifically and to be based solely upon Federal law.

Thus, the Compacts recognize-appropriately, I think-the sovereignty of the States involved and their legitimate interests and at the same time emphasize the Federal Government's-and the Congress'-interest in assuring that concerns of Federal law are addressed. In fact, they include a number of "Reservations" addedin important measure as a result of Former Speaker Gingrich's efforts to assure that Federal interests were taken into consideration.

Article XI of the Compacts recognizes "the importance and necessity of public participation in activities of the Commission, including the development and adoption of the initial allocation formula and any modification thereto" and provides that the Commission will adopt procedures ensuring this public participation. The Commission Operating Guidelines have identified thresholds for that participation. Assuring the public's participation, as provided for in the Compacts, has been a constant theme for me as Federal Commissioner. Furthermore, I have consistently encouraged the States to provide additional opportunities for public participation. Indeed, even though I was a strong advocate for mediation in the summer of 2000 to avert what appeared to be an alarming risk of the collapse of the negotiations, at the proper time I was an equally strong advocate in encouraging the States to return to an inclusive and public forum.

The Compacts' "Reservations" (Section 4) include provision for Federal agency representatives to attend Commission meetings and, at the request of the Federal Commissioner, to participate in technical committee meetings "at which the basis or terms and conditions of the allocation formula or modifications to the allocation for