which were captured in a letter I submit for the record that I sent to Martin Lancaster, Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works on January 11, 1997, illustrates clearly what our hope had been.

Our hope had been that the three States would engage in a scientific process, that, in fact, we were quite clear we hoped that the University of Florida system, the University of Georgia system and the University of Alabama system would jointly create, with some help from the Federal Government, the kind of scientific approach to the water basins, the kind of information database, the kind of modelling that would in fact give us a scientific basis for assuring some key public values.

It was also our intent—as is made very clear in that letter-for the Federal commissioners and the Federal Government to be intimately involved in the entire process, including the development of proposals, and not to simply be the recipient of State political maneuvering.

And let me say as a retired former Member, now speaking as a public citizen rather than from the Government standpoint, I think the three States have consistently fallen below the mark. I think this is this entire process has been a process of politicians seeking to protect development, seeking to protect the interest of each State in a parochial manner.

It is tragic, because, first of all, the entire country has an interest in the productivity of Apalachicola Bay, not just Florida. The entire country has an interest in States working together, as all of you know. The California, Arizona problems on the Colorado River are fully as complex and difficult as the challenges in the Southeast. In fact, because of our rainfall, the East has had much less of a problem with water than the West, and we were hoping to avoid litigation.

I asked this compact in its origin was developed in my office literally, as Chairman Barr knows, because Governor Miller called me prior to a briefing and said this would be really important and helpful if we could get an agreement. I was having a meeting with the representatives of the State of Georgia who were representing the States of Florida and Alabama as well and the Federal Government to be told by the various Federal agencies why we would not get an agreement. This was in 1997.

After listening to them on a Saturday morning, I repeated back to them the four problems that they said we had hit; and I said, "Well, if that is the definable four, we should be able to solve this." And at two o'clock the next morning, partly with substantial help from the Clinton White House which enabled us to track through the White House operators every Federal official we needed literally until 2 in the morning to get sign-off, we were able to hammer out the beginnings of this compact.

Now, our goal in doing that was to try to create a model and to avoid litigation, which is something I believe that Commissioner Thomas and I agree on, which—and I wanted to just cite the-Patrick Burns was my staffer who helped develop this. He stayed with it the whole time while I was in office, and he wrote me a memo

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 con

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