ALABAMA-COOSA-TALLAPOOSA RIVER BASIN COMPACT AND THE APALACHICOLA-CHATTAHOOCHEE AND FLINT RIVER BASIN COM PACT WEDNESDAY DECEMBER 19, 2001 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW, The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:28 a.m., in Room 2141, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Bob Barr [Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding. Mr. BARR. I would like to convene this hearing of the Subcommittee on Commercial and Administrative Law to consider matters and receive testimony relating to the Alabama-CoosaTallapoosa, Apalachicola-Chattahoochee and Flint River Basin Compacts. We are pleased today to conduct our first hearing on the progress of the ACT and ACF River Basin Compacts, as they are commonly known by their acronyms. These two compacts accomplished commissions involving the States of Georgia, Florida and Alabama which entrusted them with the development of a water resource allocation plan for the Alabama-Coosa-Tallapoosa and the Apalachicola-Chattahoochee and Flint River Basins. The two compacts were approved by the Congress in 1997 pursuant to article 1, section 10 of the U.S. Constitution, which provides that no State shall without consent of Congress enter into any agreement or compact with another State or with a foreign power. The Constitution mandates congressional authorization so that Federal interests and those of other States will be considered and protected. Proper utilization and allocation of water resources at the river basins in question is vital to the economic life and development of the entire region. Accordingly, cooperation among Alabama, Florida and Georgia is essential if a fair and reasonable allocation is to be achieved. Without a cooperative effort, wasteful litigation would appear to be inevitable, the type of litigation which the Supreme Court has repeatedly tried to discourage and the type of litigation that is guaranteed to drag on for years, if not decades, with no one being the better for it. This Subcommittee has jurisdiction over interstate compacts. While fostering and effectuating agreement among States and examining the impact of such agreements on Federal interests as our primary role, inevitably we become involved in the facts and issues that have led the States to seek an agreement in the first place. During the last Congress, for example, the Subcommittee labored long and hard to help settle the boundary between Texas and Oklahoma, a boundary that had not been completely settled since the Louisiana Purchase and the subsequent admission of Texas and Oklahoma to the Union. We also helped to resolve questions concerning the boundary between South Carolina and Georgia along the Savannah River, a boundary in dispute since the Revolutionary War. We have considered the issue of compacts involving the sale of dairy products, the establishment of cross-border police, public safety and transportation authorities, as well as a myriad of other issues involving the interests of several States. While an agreement between States as to what their common interests are is essential, an equally important role is for the Congress to determine that an agreement between the States neither disadvantages States nor adversely affects Federal interest. We are pleased to receive testimony today from a truly distinguished panel of witnesses. They will provide us with a comprehensive perspective on the original intent behind the ACF and ACT compacts, how that intent is being implemented by the States and the Federal Government and the general principles which the Supreme Court has employed in examining water resource utilization issues during the past decades. Having approved compacts, the Subcommittee takes a special interest in seeing how they are implemented, particularly with respect to any such as these that has a major impact on so large a region as the two that are the subject of today's hearing. As an ardent believer in States' rights, it is also a concern of mine, and I am sure shared by all Members of this panel, that States' rights be accompanied by an equal acceptance of States' responsibility. Chief of these responsibilities is to work in good-faith cooperation with one another and to recognize the overlay and supremacy of Federal law. Now I would like to recognize the distinguished Ranking Member, Mr. Watt, from North Carolina. Mr. WATT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will be brief. During the 9 years that I have been here in Congress, first under the speakership of Speaker Foley and then under the speakership of the distinguished gentleman from Georgia, Speaker Gingrich, and now under the speakership of Speaker Hastert, I have come to understand the amazing nature of this institution that we work in, and one of the amazing things about it is the protocols and prerogatives that being in the majority has and the responsibilities that go with being in the minority, also. One of those prerogatives of the majority and of Chairs of Committees and Subcommittees is to have a hearing about whatever they want to have a hearing about, and you find out pretty quickly that, as the Ranking Member of a Committee, that your job is to is important to the Chair. So I am here kind of in that role. I don't know a lot about what this hearing is about, but I do know that if North Carolina and South Carolina and Tennessee were involved in a similar compact, it would be very important to me. And I do know that, because this involves Georgia and surrounding States, it must be important to the Chair, and therefore it is important to the Ranking Member of this Committee. So I want to thank the Chairman for exercising his prerogative, thank the former speaker for teaching me some of these protocols and things that go with serving in this institution and certainly welcome him, as I do the other Members. And I look forward to even learning how to pronounce some of the names of these rivers and basins during the course of this hearing and learning something about it. I am sure it is something that at some point we will get a chance to replicate somewhere else, and that is what this great United States is all about. Happy to yield back to the Chair. Mr. BARR. I thank the distinguished Ranking Member for his kind and constructive remarks. The distinguished gentleman from Pennsylvania, the former Chairman of this Subcommittee, Mr. Gekas. Mr. GEKAS. I thank the Chair. We welcome all the panelists, of course, but Mr. Muys and Mr. Sherk will understand if we make special comments about our former colleagues sitting with you at the witness table. I want the whole world to know that I consider Newt Gingrich a Pennsylvanian, since he and I were born in the same hospital on the same floor but 13 years apart. He is much older than I am. But the important thing here is that we have former Georgia legislators who now join the record for that already made back in 1997 by the then current legislators like the Chairman of this Subcommittee, Mr. Barr. I must tell you that at the time we held that original hearing, I thought the matter was closed, and I am a little bit surprised that we are back here again to review some of the same tenets which were obviously important back then. So I will wait to hear what went wrong or why we are here tying up loose ends and hope that the outcome this time is more favorable than we encountered last time. I yield back the balance of my time. Mr. BARR. I thank the distinguished former Chairman and would refer him to the case of Jarndyce v. Jarndyce found in the opening pages of Bleak House for a parallel which we hope will not be replicated in this case. The distinguished gentleman from Ohio, Mr. Chabot. Mr. CHABOT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will be very brief. Mr. Speaker, we were not born in the same city or the same hospital, but, nonetheless, it was an honor to have served under your speakership for a number of years; and I certainly appreciate, as many of you did at the time and continue to, your devotion to this country and your leadership during those years. It was exemplary, and I just want to thank you for your service to your country and look forward to hearing your testimony here this morning. Thank you. Mr. BARR. Thank you. I would like to now introduce, although they need no introduction, introduce our very distinguished, indeed, world-class panel here today. Our first witness will be the Honorable Newt Gingrich. Mr. Gingrich was first elected to the U.S. House of Representatives in 1978 from the great State of Georgia. In 1995, Mr. Gingrich was elected Speaker of the House, a capacity which he served with distinction until late 1998. Mr. Gingrich earned a master's degree and a Ph.D. from Tulane University. From 1970 to 1978, Mr. Gingrich taught history and environmental studies at West Georgia College in Carrollton, Georgia. Speaker Gingrich has been intimately involved in the formulation of the ACT and ACF compacts and presided over marathon negotiations with State and Federal officials and outside stakeholders that ultimately produced the delicate compromises represented in both compacts. Mr. Gingrich currently heads the Gingrich Group, which was established to develop strategic initiatives with national and global employers on a broad range of economic issues, including issues related to health and health care, the environment, information systems, international finance, international relations and trade. Mr. Gingrich is also a member of the congressionally chartered National Strategic Study Group. He is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution and at the American Enterprise Institute and serves on a number of corporate and charitable boards. It is an honor to have you with us today, Mr. Speaker. Our next witness will be Lindsay Thomas, who currently serve as the Federal Commissioner for the ACF and ACT River Basin Commissions. Mr. Thomas represented Georgia's first congressional district from 1983 to 1993. He graduated from the University of Georgia in Athens, served in the Georgia National Guard and was an investment banker and farmer before being elected to the Congress. Mr. Thomas, it is an honor to have you here as a former colleague and as a friend and certainly as somebody who is perhaps as knowledgeable as anybody regarding the certainly the Federal interests and the Federal framework within which these compacts have been negotiated and are in the process of being implemented. We appreciate your taking time to be with us today. Our third witness will be Jerome Muys. Mr. Muys is a graduate of Princeton University and Stanford Law School and has practiced public land, water resources and environmental law since 1959. He is past chairman of the American Bar Association Section of Natural Resources, Energy and Environmental Law and is currently chairman of the Water Law Committee of the International Bar Association's Energy and Resources Law Section. Mr. Muys has taught natural resources law at the University of Virginia Law School and at George Washington University Law Center. Mr. Muys has had extensive experience in Federal and State water resources matters. He has been involved in litigation involving State, Federal and private environmental claims representing western water resources allocation, has served as the California Deputy Attorney General and has published a number We are honored to have your very unique and expansive expertise with us today, Mr. Muys. Thank you for joining us. Our fourth and final witness will be George William Sherk. Mr. Sherk obtained his bachelor's and master's degrees from Colorado State University and his law degree from the University of Denver College of Law. Mr. Sherk is currently a research scientist for the Center for Risk Science and Public Health at the Department of Environmental and Occupational Health at the George Washington University and practices law in Alexandria, Virginia. Mr. Sherk is also a professional lecturer at the George Washington University School of Engineering and Applied Science and served as a trial attorney in the Environmental and Natural Resources Division of the U.S. Department of Justice from 1984 to 1990. Mr. Sherk has published a number of scholarly articles and books concerning natural resources issues, and he currently serves as vice chair of the American Bar Association's Marine Resource Committee Section of Natural Resources, Energy and Environmental Law. Mr. Sherk, we are very familiar with your extensive work, not just on these matters generally but especially as they relate to the ACF and ACT compact issues, and we appreciate your taking time from your also very busy schedule to share your expertise with us. We will now turn to the witnesses themselves to introduce into the record such testimony as they think is important for the Subcommittee's deliberations. We will keep the record open, counsel, for 7 days to receive any additional materials that any Member of the Subcommittee or any of the witnesses deems might be useful for the Subcommittee's further work in this area. We would ask the witnesses to do their best to limit their prefatory and opening remarks to 5 minutes. Whatever statements they wish to be submitted will be submitted in their entirety after each of the witnesses has had an opportunity to make their opening statement. We will then open the floor on the Subcommittee in 5minute increments for Members to ask questions. Mr. BARR. We are honored to begin the process today with Speaker Gingrich. STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE NEWT GINGRICH, Mr. GINGRICH. Well, first let me thank the Chair for calling this hearing and for giving us an opportunity to talk about something which I think is extremely important to the people of Georgia, Alabama and Florida and also to all of the citizens of the United States for reasons I will make clear. Let me also just reassure my good friend from North Carolina that in the 16 years I spent in the minority, part of them as Ranking Member, I had very similar educational experiences, and so I totally appreciate a North Carolinian being willing to spend time on what may look like a southeastern problem below your State. But one of the reasons this was such an important effort on our part was because we did believe it was possible to create a model for river basin management between three States. And I must say-and this has no reflection on either Mr. Thomas or anybody else or the commissioners or the States-but the original ideas, |