Editorial: Another reason to be skeptical of water group

November 15, 2009
Athens Banner-Herald

It's not necessarily illegal, but the fact that meetings of a state water contingency task force are being held behind closed doors is yet another reason to be wary of what the group is doing.
Appointed by Gov. Sonny Perdue, the task force comprises more than 80 members. The group, featuring a large contingent of the state's business leaders, along with some environmentalists and elected officials, is charged with making recommendations as to how the state should respond to looming water supply issues.

Those issues, which have been apparent for some time as the state has grown, have been made more acute by a federal judge's recent ruling. That ruling gives Georgia and the states of Alabama and Florida three years to work out a plan for allocating water from the Chattahoochee River.

The river was impounded in the 1950s to form Lake Lanier, which has become a primary water supply for metropolitan Atlanta. The federal ruling notes that supplying water was not among the purposes for which the lake was built by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and mandates that withdrawals be cut back to 1970s levels if the three states can't reach an agreement regarding the Chattahoochee's water.

That would, in effect, be a death sentence for metropolitan Atlanta, an economic engine for much of the rest of the state. Thus, the task force's immediate focus is the year 2012, when metropolitan Atlanta could lose its current water supply in the absence of a three-state agreement.

Obviously, people across the state have a vital interest in where Atlanta might be getting its water if no agreement can be reached. And even if some agreement is reached, continued growth in metropolitan Atlanta is likely to mean that water sufficient to meet the area's needs will have to come from farther and farther reaches of the state.

Thus, people all across Georgia should know what the task force is doing. But Bert Brantley, spokesman for Gov. Sonny Perdue, said Friday the meetings don't have to be open because the group isn't a policymaking body.

Court rulings regarding similar groups have gone both ways, sometimes holding that groups outside of traditional lawmaking bodies should have to hold open meetings, and other times holding that there is no requirement that the meetings be open.

Members of the media have had access to the task force members outside of the one meeting the group has held thus far. But, whether the task force is operating in a gray area of the law or not, the smart move would be to open task force meetings to the public and the media. Having access to task force members outside meetings is no substitute for being in the meeting itself, where the interplay of competing views - who's backing what approach to a particular issue, and why - is clear. Having access to the meetings themselves also would allow the public and the media to know what possible solutions to water supply issues had been discarded - or accepted - and why.
Among the reasons that there already is cause for concern about the task force is the fact that business interests are heavily represented. Obviously, those interests should have a seat at the table, but it's easy to conclude that any recommendations that might come out of the task force would be weighted heavily toward those interests. Having access to the meetings would allow the public and the media to determine whether that was the case, and could help steer discussion toward more broad-based approaches.

Finally, a summary of an Oct. 16 teleconference involving then-state Environmental Protection Division director Carol Couch and members of the state's regional water planning councils - part of a statewide water management planning effort - provides more reason for concern. According to some participants, who also were members of the water task force, the task force had not, at that point, been given enough data to make informed decisions.

Plainly, there's plenty of reason for public concern about the task force, even if it doesn't have the power to embark on any water contingency plan on its own. It's clear the task force's meetings should be open to the public.