WATER WARS, CONTINUED

Georgia Loses Federal Case in a Dispute

By BRENDA GOODMAN

Published: February 6, 2008

ATLANTA — Georgia lost a major court fight in the Southern battle over water rights on Tuesday when a federal appellate-court panel said the state could not withdraw as much water as it had planned from an Atlanta-area reservoir.

The victory went to Alabama and Florida, which had contended that Georgia’s plan would siphon off water that should flow downstream to their consumers. The two states had brought the appellate suit to undo an agreement between Georgia and the Army Corps of Engineers that would have given Georgia rights to use nearly a quarter of the water in Lake Sidney Lanier, which supplies drinking water to much of northern Georgia.

In the ruling, a three-judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit said the agreement was void because the two parties had not first obtained Congressional approval. Under federal law, the corps must obtain such approval before making “major structural or operational” changes to the management of its federal reservoirs.

“I simply do not see how we can conclude this is not a major change,” Judge Judith W. Rogers wrote for the panel.

Under the 2003 pact with the Army Corps, Georgia was allowed to increase its share of the reservoir allocated for water storage to 22.9 percent from 13.9 percent.

Florida and Alabama have been in contentious negotiations with Georgia over the right to use water from Lake Lanier for almost two decades.

Governors from the three states have been in water-sharing talks brokered by Dirk Kempthorne, the interior secretary, and had pledged to reach an agreement by Feb. 15.

Now experts say those talks will almost certainly be prolonged or postponed.

“Right now, the states of Florida and Alabama have certainly drawn a pair of aces to their pair of jacks and they’re holding a pretty strong hand,” said Mark Crisp, an engineering consultant for several power companies that had originally brought the suit against the corps.

Gov. Bob Riley of Alabama hailed the decision as “the most consequential legal ruling in the 18-year history of the water war, and one of the most important in the history of the State of Alabama.”

He said the ruling “invalidates the massive water grab that Georgia tried to pull off.”

Alabama and Florida, which depend on water from Lake Lanier for power generation, industry, recreation and commercial fishing, argued Georgia had no legal right to the reservoir, which was originally built for hydropower.

It was unclear late Tuesday whether Georgia would appeal the ruling to the United States Supreme Court. Calls to Gov. Sonny Perdue’s office seeking comment were not immediately returned.

Though the fast-growing Atlanta area relies on the reservoir, the other states have argued that Georgia has done little water planning over the decades and has not tied growth and development to water resources.

On Wednesday, Mr. Perdue is scheduled to sign into law Georgia’s first comprehensive water management plan, which was hastily approved by both houses of the General Assembly last month in the opening days of the 2008 legislative session. Environmental groups have already criticized the plan as ineffectual in the face of a record drought, which could threaten the drinking water for four million people.

Gil Rogers, a staff lawyer for the Southern Center for Environmental Law in Atlanta, said that the ruling could force lawmakers to consider tougher water restrictions for the state.

“It’s certainly going to make Atlanta justify how it’s using the water now,” Mr. Rogers said. “It’s going to raise the bar as far as what Atlanta is doing with what it already has.”

More Bad News for GM Crops

Scientists Find Evidence Of Pest Resistance To GMO Crops
	2/8/2008 11:04:00 AM
Scientists Find Evidence Of Pest Resistance To GMO Crops Scientists say they have found the first confirmation insects have developed resistance to genetically-modified crops. University of Arizona entomologists looked at data from six experiments to monitor pests in fields sown with transgenic cotton and corn in Australia, China, Spain and the U.S. They found evidence of genetic mutation among bollworms in a dozen cotton fields sown in Mississippi and Arkansas between 2003 and 2006. But no such evidence was found among five other major pests monitored elsewhere. The mutation entails a slight change in the bollworm's DNA to help it resist a toxin the cotton plant exudes thanks to a gene inserted by biotechnologists. These GM toxins are produced in nature by a widespread bacterium called Bacillus thuringiensis, which goes by the abbreviation Bt. The type of Bt toxin to which these bollworms have become resistant is called Cry1Ac. "What we're seeing is evolution in action," said lead researcher Bruce Tabashnik. "This is the first documented case of field-evolved resistance to a Bt crop." Tabashnik said a new variety of Bt cotton was successfully combatting the resistant bollworms as it combined a second toxin, Cry2Ab, with Cry1Ac. Green groups, who are fierce opponents of GMO technology in agriculture, have long predicted pests would become resistant to transgenic toxins, as happens frequently in the case of chemical insecticides. To overcome the resistance, scientists would have to use higher levels of toxins or different kinds, they say. On the other hand, the paper, published Thursday in the U.K. journal Nature Biotechnology, found no evidence of resistance among the other insect pests being monitored. They remained susceptible to Bt toxin. Worst-case scenarios sketched by critics of GM crops have predicted pests would become resistant to Bt crops in as little as three years, said Tabashnik. "The resistance occurred in one particular pest in one part of the U.S.," Tabashnik said. "The other major pests attacking Bt crops have not evolved resistance. And even most bollworm populations have not evolved resistance." Bt cotton and Bt corn, introduced by U.S. agri-giant Monsanto Co. (MON) in 1996, have been grown on more than 162 million hectares worldwide, "generating one of the largest selections for insect resistance ever known," notes the paper. Resistance among the bollworms developed faster in places where there was little or no "refuges," the term for areas where there are non-BT crops, the review found. The idea behind refuges is to provide a haven for pests that don't have the genetic mutations. This boosts the probability a resistant pest will mate with a non-resistant pest, creating a hybrid that would still be susceptible to the toxin. In most pests, offspring are resistant to the novel toxins only if both parents are resistant. (END) Dow Jones Newswires

Water, water everywhere, yet not a drop to drink

Fri Jan 25, 1:11 AM ET

DAVOS, Switzerland - U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon urged the world on Thursday to put the looming crisis over water shortages at the top of the global agenda this year and take action to prevent conflicts over scarce supplies.

He reminded business and political leaders at the World Economic Forum that the conflict in the Darfur region of Sudan was touched off by drought — and he said shortages of water contribute to poverty and social hardship in Somalia, Chad, Israel, the Palestinian territories, Nigeria, Sri Lanka, Haiti, Colombia and Kazakhstan.

"Too often, where we need water we find guns instead," Ban said. "Population growth will make the problem worse. So will climate change. As the global economy grows, so will its thirst. Many more conflicts lie just over the horizon."

He said a recent report identified 46 countries with 2.7 billion people where climate change and water-related crises create "a high risk of violent conflict" and a further 56 countries, with 1.2 billion people "are at high risk of violent conflict." The report was by International Alert, an independent peacebuilding organization based in London.

Ban told the VIP audience that he spent 2007 "banging my drum on climate change," an issue the Forum also had as one of its main themes last year. He welcomed the focus on water this year saying the session should be named: "Water is running out."

"We need to adapt to this reality, just as we do to climate change," he said. "There is still enough water for all of us — but only so long as we can keep it clean, use it more wisely, and share it fairly."

Ban said he will invite world leaders to "a critical high-level meeting" in September to focus on meeting U.N. development goals — including cutting by half the number of people without access to safe drinking water by 2015 — particularly in Africa.

Ban's call for global action on water got strong support from several top business executives.

"Water is today's issue," said Andrew Liveris, chairman and CEO of Dow Chemical Co., the world's second largest chemical company. "It is the oil of this century, not a question."

E. Neville Isdell, chairman and CEO of The Coca-Cola Co., said "this is an issue which ranks next to climate change. ... However, water has got lost as part of the climate change debate."

Isdell urged the world to "raise the issue of water to the level that we have managed to raise the issue of climate change."

Peter Brabeck-Letmathe, chairman and CEO of Nestle SA, the world's biggest food and drink company, said "time is still on our side but time is running out, just like water is running out."

Ban urged top business executives to join a U.N. project to help poor people gain access to clean water — and he praised Coca-Cola, Dow Chemical and Nestle for their programs and their efforts to be part of the water solution.

Politics Again - Is Barrack Obama the ONE??

"Exactly four years ago today, I returned home from Iraq. Nineteen of my fellow paratroopers from the 82nd Airborne weren’t as lucky. I witnessed George Bush’s failed strategy firsthand and was determined to do something about it and start bringing our troops home. Now, as the first and only Iraq war veteran in Congress, I take seriously my responsibility to call for a new foreign policy, and to making sure our nation fulfills its promise to my fellow veterans.

We need a President who has the vision, the judgment, and the courage to make this change become a reality. Barack Obama will be that President.

From the beginning, Barack had the foresight to speak out against the war and the Bush Administration's terrible mismanagement of it.

Barack Obama will put an end to Bush’s policy blunders and bring our troops home safely and responsibly. Barack and I introduced the Iraq De-escalation Act. (You can view details of our plan at my website, www.murphy08.com.)

Our bill calls for clear benchmarks, a clear timeline for redeployment and a strategic strike force to combat al Qaeda. Most importantly, this redeployment from Iraq will give our military the personnel and equipment it needs to redouble its efforts at destroying al Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan. We need Senator Obama's comprehensive approach to foreign policy and we need to make sure that we are fighting on the right battlefields.

Barack Obama will bring a new approach to foreign policy, one that understands the world as it really is. He will restore our reputation around the globe and end the Bush vision of foreign policy as a political weapon. And when a Republican candidate tells us that we’ll be in Iraq for 100 years, we know that a change in foreign policy can’t wait one more day.

Barack is also committed to getting our veterans proper treatment. He is the grandson of a World War II veteran and serves on the Senate’s Veteran’s Affairs Committee, which just passed the largest increase in veterans’ benefits in the 77 year history of the Veterans Administration. As President, he pledged to have a "zero tolerance" policy for homelessness among our veterans. On any given night, there are 200,000 veterans living on the streets in this country. As President, Barack will end this injustice.

But to truly change our nation's direction, we need more than just new policies. We need you. A few weeks ago, I was up in New Hampshire door-knocking and talked with a 20-year old woman named Julie. She and her brother were supporting Senator Obama. She said, "My brother is a Marine who just left for his fourth deployment in Iraq. We feel that if Obama is our next Commander-in-Chief, he won’t have to go back for a fifth deployment."

That is what this election is about. I know Senator Obama has a rare ability to lead that doesn't come along very often. We need a fundamental change both at home and abroad, and I believe Barack Obama will bring about that change if we give him a chance.

Thank you,

Patrick Murphy

U.S. Representative, (D) PA-08"