Table 3. Oyster landings (lb) for Florida and Franklin County at 5-year in- 

 tervals from 1950 to 1975 (U.S. Amy Corps of Engineers 1980). 



The environmental conflict concerning the Apalachicola River is the 

 navigation channel. The Corps of Engineers is authorized by the Rivers and 

 Harbors Act of 1945, as amended, to maintain a river channel 100 ft wide by 

 9 ft deep, available 95% of the time on the Apalachicola River, on the 

 Chattahoochee River to Columbus, Georgia, and on the Flint River to 

 Bainbridge, Georgia. The Jim Woodruff Lock and Dam was completed in 1957 at 

 the juncture of the three rivers and several smaller dams on the upper rivers 

 were finished by 1965. Since that time, continuous dredging has been required 

 to maintain a 9-ft channel, and even this is functional only about 75% of the 

 time. In the early 1970's, plans were begun to build additional dams on the 

 Apalachicola River to increase the time of functioning of the 9-ft channel to 

 95% of the year. This was the start of a long-running conflict between Flor- 

 ida interests opposing the project and Georgia and Alabama interests favoring 

 the project. 



In 1978, the Corps of Engineers proposed a dam near Blountstown, but 

 strong opposition in Florida caused the Corps to reconsider its proposal. 

 Currently, the Corps, together with the States of Florida, Alabama, and 

 Georgia, is initiating a study "to help alleviate multiple-use problems of the 

 river system so as not to have significant detrimental impacts on Apalachicola 

 Bay" (Apalachee Regional Planning Council 1980). The proposal to the U.S. 

 Water Resources Council is to study the inherent problems of multiple uses of 

 the tri-river system (Apalachicola, Flint, and Chattahoochee Rivers) such as 

 navigation, hydropower, recreation, flood control, and ecosystem maintenance, 

 and verify that the river system must be managed as a complete and unified 

 system (Apalachee Regional Planning Council 1980). 



At one time, the Apalachicola River was proposed as an area of Critical 

 State Concern, but this action was dropped because the pace of land develop- 

 ment was slow, local governments were not prepared to deal with the necessary 

 ACSC procedures, and approximately 80% of the land would be exempt because it 

 was in agriculture or forestry. As an alternative means of control, the 

 Apalachicola River Resource Management Plan was formulated in 1977. A com- 

 mittee of local and State officials representing econoiiic and conservation 

 interests was formed to help promote the economic development of the area 



233 



