Jeff Sessions

This would be very important to us because there is a good deal of concern on that.

One of the things that concerns us is when it appears contracts are not being enforced.

What if you take out more than that? Are you telling me you're going to stay at that contract amount?

That sounds like pretty good policy, does it not? If Congress authorizes a dam for a series of purposes, the Corps of Engineers does not have the authority to alter that purpose, does it?

The environmental impact statement, if you change the manuals, the flow rate and the withdrawal rate, an environmental impact statement is required?

Would you acknowledge that at a time of drought, as occurred in 2007, exceeding substantially the amount of withdrawals would be particularly problematic for downstream individuals depending on that water flow?

The way this historically arose I have discovered is that Congress was concerned about being in a position of financing water supply projects for cities, counties and areas.

I hope you are correct in saying Cobb County is operating consistently at their contract level, but I have been informed they are well above the contract level.

I know if our Governors can reach an agreement, I am sure that our Senators would reach an agreement.

Don't you think that would be the preferable way to solve this dispute, if it could be achieved?

The downstream areas, Florida and Alabama particularly, have been concerned about a possible bias of the Corps toward Atlanta on these water issues over quite a long time.

In 1956, you apparently felt it was necessary to get approval for 10 million gallons per day. It seems to me if you jumped that to 170 million gallons per day, you for sure ought to get congressional approval.

The Water Supply Act says, among other things, that Congress must approve a major operational change, I believe is the phrase.

As an Alabamian, I think I speak for all Alabamians and the Governor that we understand north Georgia needs water and we can work this out.

I think you should think about that. Maybe Secretary Darcy, you could comment on that but it is a very real thing.

Would you agree that it is not permissible under the law to take the water first and then get a legal authority later?

It is pretty obvious to me you need to be thinking about it as you go through this process.

Senator Sessions mentioned that he would agree with it too.

I just noticed that NOAA's report on hurricanes, major hurricanes, for example, per decade show by far the highest number was 41 to 50, with 10 in the last 40 years.

Well, thank you for that. I think it should give us cause to analyze and think about that.

And since we have policies that are being discussed that are going to be based on that red line, I think we need to consider the possibility that we need to go back and figure out what is wrong with the models before we start basing…

So, in the 1950's, we had clearly greater hurricane activity.

Well, they happen for some reason and we may be finding that CO2 will impact global temperatures.

So, back in 1995 our, well, in recent times the models were predicting a rather continuing increase in temperature because CO2 continues to increase in the world and whatever other factors they use.

Well, exactly right. You ask, people talk about we have had more storms and I do not think that is accurate.