Two environmental organizations, the Alabama Rivers Alliance and Southern Environmental Law Center, released a report on Wednesday detailing the changes needed in state policies to ensure that Alabama has clean and plentiful drinking water and healthy river systems for the long term.

The Alabama Water Agenda calls on state leaders to take prompt action to protect the state’s environment and to manage Alabama’s waters to ensure the resource is fully protected and allocated fairly among communities, farms and industry.

The groups recommend more funding for water quality programs, stronger enforcement of water laws and better coordination among the many state agencies with some level of responsibility for our water resources.

“Healthy water in Alabama starts with strong leadership from state decision-makers,” said Cindy Lowry, Alabama Rivers Alliance Executive Director. “We want people to be more aware of the importance of water in our lives and the need for sound water policy to protect this valuable resource.”

Alabama is one of the only states in the South that does not have a comprehensive statewide water resources management plan, which makes it particularly vulnerable to threats from nature and from neighboring states.

The recent federal court ruling in the Alabama-Georgia-Florida “water wars” lawsuit was a major setback for Alabama, which has long sought to compel Georgia to release more water from Lake Lanier into the Apalachicola-Chattahoochee-Flint basin to meet the needs of southeast Alabama.

“Alabama is vulnerable right now because it does not have a statewide water plan, and it can hurt us in water negotiations in the future,” said Keith Johnston, Managing Attorney at the Birmingham Office of the Southern Environmental Law Center. Georgia and Florida have state water plans.

A comprehensive water plan would also help Alabama cope with natural threats, including droughts like the one currently gripping the southeast area of the state, which could have been mitigated by proper water management policies.

“Aside from any legal disputes with our neighbors, it’s just common sense for Alabama to have a long-range vision for managing such a valuable resource in a sustainable way, and we look forward to working with local and state leaders to achieve this goal,” Johnston said.

With more than 77,000 miles of rivers and streams, Alabama ranks sixth in the nation for the most continuously flowing streams, and first in freshwater species diversity. But, Alabama also ranks fourth for the number of aquatic species at risk for extinction—an indication of river systems under stress.

The Alabama Water Agenda, first produced by the Alabama Rivers Alliance and Southern Environmental Law Center in 2007, prioritized the major threats to Alabama’s waters and offered solutions as a guide for legislators, grassroots leaders and decision-makers.

The updated report, available for download at AlabamaWaterAgenda.com, is written less as a technical document and more for a broader audience of citizens. It identifies systemic problems and recommends numerous changes to address them. It also provides real-world examples that highlight widespread environmental problems in Alabama, including industrial, urban, and agricultural pollution and unrestrained development.

Representatives of the Alabama Rivers Alliance and the Southern Environmental Law Center are stopping in cities across Alabama this week to promote the Alabama Water Agenda, which will also be presented to Governor Robert Bentley, each member of the State Legislature, the Alabama Democratic Party and the heads of the all agencies with oversight of Alabama’s water resources.

The agenda focuses on four key solutions for solving the state’s most pressing water problems and identifies specific actions the state can take to achieve these goals.

Water Policy: Alabama needs policies governing our waters with strong laws and clear, enforceable regulations.

Enforcement: Alabama agencies need sufficient authority and funding to enforce laws, which are meaningless without adequate enforcement.

Agency Coordination: Alabama has seven agencies with differing responsibilities for managing state waterways that often conflict or overlap, creating confusion, disagreement and inaction. Alabama’s agencies need better coordination.

Funding: Existing state programs that monitor and protect our waters are grossly and chronically under-funded. Additional resources are needed to properly implement our existing laws and to provide for new and expanded programs that will better protect our waters.

The appeals court overruled a 2009 finding by a federal judge that the Corps of Engineers has been illegally using Lake Lanier to supply water to Atlanta. The ruling is a setback for Alabama, which has long sought to compel Georgia to release more water from the lake and into the Apalachicola-Chattahoochee-Flint basin to meet downstream water and energy needs of communities and farms in southeast Alabama.

The future sustainability of Alabama’s water resources depends on a healthy balance between the states’ competing water uses within the shared water systems, according to Cindy Lowry with the Alabama Rivers Alliance. Unplanned growth and over-allocation of water resources in each state has created a system that has been out of balance for decades. The ruling highlights the fact that Alabama must engage in meaningful planning for long-term sustainability by being as efficient as possible in our water use.

“The ruling should be a wake-up call for Alabama. As the only state in the tri-state water conflict that does not have a comprehensive water management plan, Alabama continues to be in the weakest position for negotiating the needs of people, businesses, communities, and ecosystems,” Lowry said. “It’s clear Alabama can no longer rely on litigation to try to keep the waters flowing in our state. The future of clean water in Alabama lies in strong leadership from our elected officials.”

The Southern Environmental Law Center’s Gil Rogers said the current severe drought in southeast Alabama is a stark example of how important preparation and planning are for managing our water assets.

“Our groups issued a water agenda for Alabama a couple of years ago that provides a framework to develop a balanced approach to water allocation that would allow Alabama communities and businesses to thrive,” Rogers said. “We stand ready to assist the governor, the legislature and other leaders to formulate such a plan. We must act now.”

The proposed cost of the 52-mile beltline was recently increased to $4.7 billion, a 38 percent hike from the original estimate. Much of the money would come from federal road dollars, but state taxpayers would be responsible for nearly $1 billion in matching funds. At about $90 million per mile, the beltline would be one of the most expensive interstate highways in U.S. history, according to the Black Warrior Riverkeeper.

The group is suing the agency for violating the National Environmental Policy Act, which requires a thorough evaluation of environmental impacts and alternatives in order to identify the most cost-effective and least damaging alternatives for projects funded with federal money.

“We have been waiting for years for ALDOT to do its homework before proceeding as required by federal law,” said Gil Rogers, senior attorney with the Southern Environmental Law Center, which represents the river group in the lawsuit. “Unfortunately, this expensive and outdated highway project continues to move forward without a study of the most cost-effective way to bring economic growth to this part of the state.”

The state’s $1 billion share of the beltline exceeds the annual construction budget for the entire state, and would be almost five times as much as the annual budget for road and bridge maintenance statewide. The high price of the state’s match means that many other necessary projects-such as safety improvements, bridge repair and road maintenance in Montgomery, Mobile, Huntsville, and elsewhere, including Birmingham, would go unfunded to accommodate the beltline.

The state has failed to undertake any comparison of the true economic development impacts of this project with other transportation improvement alternatives, nor does the $4.7 billion price tag take into account the additional cost to local governments of providing services like secondary roads and utilities to accommodate new growth in the region. Further, the beltline would likely trigger a shift of economic activity away from existing Birmingham neighborhoods.

“ALDOT’s inadequate study of this roadway’s cumulative economic and environmental impacts led to decisions being made in a vacuum without proper planning or public input,” said Nelson Brooke, spokesman for Black Warrior Riverkeeper. “Sprawling development along this highway will lead to increased pollution in local streams and rivers to the detriment of all who live downstream.”

The Northern Beltline was first proposed a half century ago, when engineers routinely designed bypasses around metro areas to relieve traffic. Today’s transportation experts increasingly recognize the built-in liabilities of bypasses — declining downtowns, sprawl, loss of open space, impaired water quality and increased traffic and smog.

The state completed an environmental study on the project in 1997 and chose the route for the Northern Beltline that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency cited as the most environmentally destructive. Because no work on the project occurred over the next three years, the analysis expired, so the department was legally required to re-evaluate its study and factor in changed conditions and correct deficiencies.

Instead, in 2006, ALDOT released an extremely limited study covering only 3.4 miles, which according to the lawsuit amounts to an illegal segmentation of the project under the National Environmental Policy Act. Moreover, ALDOT has continued to ignore the environmental impacts of development spurred by the 3.4-mile segment and the beltline as a whole.

Click here to read SELC’s factsheet on the Northern Beltline (pdf)

In an effort to help defend the state’s program to stop polluted stormwater runoff, a coalition of non-profit groups advocating for clean water have filed a motion to intervene in a permit appeal by a pro-business development organization filed against the Alabama Department of Environmental Management.

Represented by the Southern Environmental Law Center, the Alabama Rivers Alliance, the Black Warrior Riverkeeper and the Cahaba River Society say the lawsuit by the Business Alliance for Responsible Development (BARD) is a delaying tactic aimed at keeping local and state stormwater controls weak and ineffective.

Without adequate programs to control polluted runoff from development and urban uses, downstream communities and businesses will continue to shoulder the high costs to clean drinking water and repair flood damages, the groups say in a press release announcing the legal action.

“Rivers, streams, coastal waters and lakes are critical to Alabamians for drinking water, recreation, wildlife and the economy. Polluted runoff is harming those uses. Every delay in halting polluted runoff means more degradation of our water and higher long-term clean-up costs for the public,” said Gil Rogers, head of the Clean Water Program for the Southern Environmental Law Center, which filed the motion earlier this week in with the Alabama Environmental Management Commission. (Click here for a link to the motion).

Under the federal Clean Water Act, ADEM is required to set up a permitting program for small cities to control their polluted stormwater runoff. In August 2010, the Environmental Protection Agency rejected ADEM’s first version because it did not meet basic requirements of the law. It was the first time the EPA had ever taken such a step with any state. ADEM subsequently made some modest improvements and issued a final permit on February 1.

But in loaded language worthy of Fox News propaganda, according to information posted on BARD’s Website, the group claims the state’s Storm Water Management Authority “grew to become a runaway bureaucracy with a bloated budget.”

While the group’s mission claims an interest in a clean environment as well as economic development, the board of directors is controlled by big time polluting corporations and developers, including Alabama Power Company, Barber Companies, Newcastle Homes, Drummond Coal Company, the Greater Birmingham Association of Home Builders, Liberty Park Joint Venture and USS Real Estate.

Stormwater runoff is widely acknowledged as one of the most serious causes of water pollution in Alabama.

“Many responsible developers in Alabama are already achieving the standards called for in ADEM’s permit. Better stormwater practices that safeguard drinking water and help prevent flooding are proven to save money and make money for developers and communities,” said Beth Stewart, Executive Director of the Cahaba River Society. “In these tough economic times, green projects with lower stormwater costs give developers and communities a competitive advantage, but lax stormwater controls undercut innovative developers and transfer costs to local governments and downstream neighbors.”

BARD’s challenge of ADEM’s stormwater permit represents one more salvo in its continued resistance to improving development practices that protect water quality. For years, BARD has incited local governments to fight against standards that better manage development. BARD’s misguided advice that local governments are doing too much to stop stormwater pollution has already made some cities and counties vulnerable to EPA audits and enforcement oversight.

In 2009 and 2010 the EPA found that the stormwater programs of cities and counties in the Birmingham-Hoover metro area were not meeting basic requirements of the Clean Water Act.

“Traditionally, our organization has been on the opposite side of ADEM, as we consistently challenge them to do a better job of protecting Alabama’s waters,” said Eva Dillard, Staff Attorney for Black Warrior Riverkeeper. “We’re taking ADEM’s side in this appeal because we don’t want to see the permit weakened even further, which is BARD’s main objective.”

“Enforceable permits are absolutely essential to stopping the devastating impacts of uncontrolled stormwater across Alabama,” said Mitch Reid, Program Director of the Alabama Rivers Alliance. “Protecting our rivers is a shared responsibility of government at every level and this permit provides a level playing field so that no community is disadvantaged for doing the right thing for our environment.”

The proposed permit will govern the local stormwater programs of about 60 smaller cities and counties for the next five to seven years. Just as important, the groups say, ADEM has indicated that this permit will be the basis for other stormwater permits that will be written for larger cities and counties, as well as for the Alabama Department of Transportation, and could therefore set a bad precedent and lead to more polluted storm water runoff in the future.

A federal judge has dismissed a Clean Air Act lawsuit alleging that Alabama Power Company failed to install pollution controls when it refurbished three of its coal-fired units in Alabama, at Greene County No. 2, Barry No. 2 in Mobile and the Gorgas plant No. 10 in Birmingham.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency brought the enforcement action in 2001, contending that the overhaul projects increased sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxide pollution in Alabama by thousands of tons every year and triggered the Clean Air Act’s “New Source Review” program, which requires installation of advanced pollution controls for such projects.

The Alabama Environmental Council, represented by the Southern Environmental Law Center, intervened in the lawsuit on the side of the EPA.

Blan Holman, SELC senior attorney, said the law requires that dirty coal plants clean up if a renovation project enables them to run more and pollute more every year.

“The evidence showed that Alabama Power fully expected polluting operations to increase after these projects, but that evidence was disregarded,” Holman said in a statement. “We respectfully disagree with the court’s rulings and expect to appeal.”

Emissions from coal-fired power plants are a major contributor of air pollution in Alabama that triggers health problems including asthma and other respiratory diseases, as well as heart disease and premature death. Installing pollution controls at the time of the overhauls would have reduced sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxide pollution from the units by at least 80 percent — thousands of tons per year.

In the orders, U.S. District Court Judge Virginia Hopkins excluded expert testimony offered by the plaintiffs showing that Alabama Power should have predicted that the upgrades at the Gorgas, Barry and Greene County plants would increase air pollution, triggering the requirements to install the control devices. Without that evidence, the case was dismissed.

EPA and the Alabama Environmental Council have 60 days from March 14 to file an appeal.

Michael Churchman, Alabama Environmental Council executive director, said it is “a shame” that Alabama Power chooses not to install the latest and best available technology of pollution control equipment.

“It is also a shame that Alabama Power would argue with the Environmental Protection Agency that these were not large enough modifications to mandate that they implement best available pollution control technology that could reduce some pollutions by as much as 80 percent each year,” Churchman said.

In the Birmingham News blog post version of the story, they quote Charles McCrary, Alabama Power president and CEO, saying this: “Following the rules is a core principle at Alabama Power, and we’re very pleased with the court’s findings in the case.”

What they don’t tell you is that the judge in the case, Virginia Emerson Hopkins, was appointed to the court in 2004 by pro-big business Republican President George W. Bush on the recommendations of pro-big business Republican Senators Richard Shelby and Jeff Sessions.

If you think the courts in Alabama and around the country are not polluted by partisanship, think again.