Dividing a symphysis proposal into components

The following example of a proposal to approach the Tri-State Water War among Florida, Alabama, and Georgia has been developed by:

Dorraine Duncan, Rebecca Harris, Sergey Kolesnikov, Jessica Rose, Seokkyun Joshua Woo, and Michael Hoffmann, School of Public Policy at the Georgia Institute of Technology (spring 2015)

All water users and beneficiaries in the Apalachicola-Chattahoochee-Flint (ACF) River Basin should pay a water tax into a Tri-State Water Compensation Fund according to the size of their stake in the water system. In the beginning 80% of the Fund should be used for water conservation and water storage projects (technology and infrastructure) prioritized according to their efficiency and 20% should be used for building up an emergency fund for compensation payments for future sectoral and environmental damage caused by low water flow. The Fund’s ratio of funding for water conservation / water storage projects and compensation savings should be adjusted every 4 years based on an assessment of actual and expected low-water-flow damages over a 8-year period and of proposed conservation and storage projects. Water withdrawal should additionally be taxed with a flat fee when water levels are high and with an exponentially increasing fee that kicks in when a “buffer zone” of water flow is reached (which should be defined, based a comprehensive ACF basin water system model, as the area between two water levels: the seasonally changing not-damage-causing water flow level and a significant percentage above it). Damages caused by low water flows and lake levels should be compensated by the Fund to actors in the ACF basin in the order of their position in a ranking system that is based on their lack of opportunity to control their water supply.

To justify this proposal, it can be divided into the following components:

  • All water users and beneficiaries in the Apalachicola-Chattahoochee-Flint (ACF) River Basin should pay a water tax into a Tri-State Water Compensation Fund according to the size of their stake in the water system.
  • In the beginning 80% of the Fund should be used for water conservation and water storage projects (technology and infrastructure) prioritized according to their efficiency and 20% should be used for building up an emergency fund for compensation payments for future sectoral and environmental damage caused by low water flow.

  • The Fund’s ratio of funding for water conservation / water storage projects and compensation savings should be adjusted every 4 years based on an assessment of actual and expected low-water-flow damages over a 8-year period and of proposed conservation projects.

  • Water withdrawal should additionally be taxed with a flat fee when water levels are high and with an exponentially increasing fee that kicks in when a “buffer zone” of water flow is reached (which should be defined, based a comprehensive ACF basin water system model, as the area between two water levels: the seasonally changing not-damage-causing minimal water flow level and a significant percentage above it).

  • Damages caused by low water flows and lake levels should be compensated by the Fund to actors in the ACF basin in the order of their position in a ranking system that is based on their lack of opportunity to control their water supply.