Tri-State Water Wars – Distributive or Integrative Bargaining?

For nearly twenty years, Alabama, Georgia, and Florida have been fighting over the rights to water from the ACF and ACT River Basins. All three states have competing demands for the use of the water; consumption, economic development, irrigation, fish and wildlife protection, and recreation are just a few of the many uses that have been identified along the way.

So, what in the world is taking so long? There seem to be many reasons for the stand-off. To start, the twenty-year negotiation has been marked by a tremendous amount of political and legal maneuvering. Neither state politicians nor Congress are willing to take a stand; everyone keeps pointing the finger at someone else to resolve the dispute. Who even has the final legal authority to make (or veto) a decision seems like a complicated matter. Furthermore, in non-draught periods, the issue seems less timely. As media coverage dies down during these periods, there is not as much political pressure to reach an agreement and the negotiation continues to drag on.

The number one reason, though, I think the three states have failed to reach an agreement is due to a distribution bargaining approach to the situation. Media coverage indicates that each state is stuck on arguing over how much water it should get. In order for one state to do better, the other two states have to do worse. In this way, the negotiation comes down to a value judgment: is Atlanta’s growth “more important” than Florida’s marine life or Alabama’s own economic growth? As a practical matter, no one is going to be able to make such a decision.

A better solution would be for the states to approach the dispute as an integrative negotiation opportunity. If Florida’s oysters require a certain amount of flow from Lake Lanier in order to survive, then what else can Florida offer Georgia to compensate for the water? Maybe Florida could make a cash side payment to Georgia to fund rebates for low-flow toilets. Or, maybe there is something completely outside of the arena of water that Florida could provide Georgia as compensation. Maybe political votes in Georgia’s favor for some different matter in Washington? Or what about guaranteed rights to some big economic development opportunity in the region?

I predict that an integrative approach will ultimately be what helps the three states reach an agreement. After a federal judge ruled against Georgia in July in the matter of withdrawals from Lake Lanier, a group called the ACF Stakeholders was formed to help develop a solution to the problem. Since ACF Stakeholders represents a diverse group of people, its members should be able to think creatively about possible solutions. I also predict that with this new group, a solution will be reached during a time when there is minimal media coverage (like now, when there has been ample rainfall in the region). Since the group is not made up of elected officials, it should be less interested in playing out the debate in the news. I expect that whatever integrative solution is reached will include many side payments and will ultimately receive minimal media coverage. In my mind, a non-descript ending to this bitter debate would be best.