Interbasin Transfers Briefing Document November 2010

Transcription

1 Interbasin Transfers Briefing Document November 2010 The Georgia Water Coalition is a consortium of 182 partners across the state, including environmental organizations, homeowners and neighborhood associations, sportsman organizations, faith based groups, and businesses who share the common goal of protecting and caring for Georgia s water resources. The Coalition is guided by four key principles: 1. Effective water management requires public participation in water planning 2. The surface and ground waters of the state are a public resource to be managed by the state in the public interest and in a sustainable manner. 3. Georgia s water resources should be shared among users in an equitable manner to meet reasonable needs and assure the long-term sustainability of the natural systems on which all water users depend. 4. Water efficiency and water conservation are the cornerstones of effective water management. 1

2 Interbasin Transfers: A Case for Regulation Summary: The purpose of this document is to educate decision makers about interbasin transfers a controversial water management practice that creates conflicts between upstream and downstream water users within Georgia as well as with neighboring states. What is an interbasin transfer? An interbasin transfer takes place when water is withdrawn from one river basin (a donor basin), distributed for use in another river basin (receiving basin) and not returned to the basin of origin. Interbasin transfers involve a consumptive use of water from the donor basin. Recommendation: Because interbasin transfers impact some 5.5 million people living in counties dependent upon interbasin transfers and millions more living downstream from these counties, this issue should be addressed by the Georgia General Assembly through robust fact-finding, debate and ultimately, adoption of statutes regulating interbasin transfers. A Summary of Interbasin Transfers and State Laws Regulating Interbasin Transfers: Georgia has 14 major river basins 108 of Georgia s 159 counties (68 percent) lie in more than one river basin Citizens in portions of 28 counties in Georgia rely on water for drinking and other water supply purposes from interbasin transfers. Most of these transfers take place in Metro Atlanta. Of the 105 million gallons per day transferred statewide in 2008, 90 percent was transferred in Metro Atlanta. Since January 2010, more than 2500 Georgians have signed the Georgia Water Coalition s petition. From Clayton to Bainbridge and Blue Ridge to Savannah, citizens are calling on state leaders to regulate interbasin transfers More than half the state s population (5.5 million people) live in counties that are dependent upon interbasin transfers for a portion of their water supply. Though only a small percentage of the water withdrawn from our rivers is transferred to another river basin, these transfers have already negatively impacted flows on some Georgia rivers and injured downstream water users The state law that created the Metropolitan North Georgia Water Planning District prohibits the transfer of water from outside Metro Atlanta into Metro Atlanta, but currently entities within the District are actively pursuing proposals that would involve large water transfers from outside the District (see Future Interbasin Transfers below). Existing state laws regulating water withdrawals provide no specific mandates in regards to water withdrawals that involve interbasin transfers with the exception of (n) which requires Georgia s Environmental Protection Division (EPD) to issue a press release to newspapers in impacted areas seven days prior to issuing a permit. The State Water Plan adopted in 2008, and vetted by stakeholders across the state, recommends a list of 22 criteria that EPD should consider when issuing a water withdrawal permit for an interbasin transfer. 2

3 Because some counties straddle two or more river basins, water distribution systems and wastewater systems sometimes move water from one river basin to another. Citizens in 28 Georgia counties rely on IBTs. For instance, Cobb County in Metro Atlanta withdraws water from both the Etowah and the Chattahoochee rivers. The water from these sources intermingles in the distribution system and is then discharged as treated wastewater to both the Etowah and Chattahoochee basins. However, the majority of the wastewater is discharged to the Chattahoochee, resulting in a net loss of water from the Etowah River. While interbasin transfers occur in different areas of the state, the majority of these transfers are performed in Metro Atlanta because of the large population and demand for water and the fact that the region encompasses five major river basins. Long-distance water transfers are often relied upon when population centers or waterintensive agriculture or industry are not Interbasin Transfers Background Interbasin Transfers for the Year 2008 in Millions of Gallons per Day. The largest donor basins in the state are the Chattahoochee and Coosa Rivers which flow to Alabama and Florida. Water transfers may aggravate water sharing negotiations with these neighbors. (IBT Data Source: Georgia Environmental Protection Division) located near adequate water supplies. This situation has prompted proposals to pipe water to Metro Atlanta from the Tennessee River, from lakes Hartwell and Burton in the Savannah River Basin and even from South Georgia s aquifers. A Global Perspective Globally, long-distance transfers are commonplace, but often lead to catastrophic results for donor rivers and the communities they support. Some examples of interbasin transfers gone awry include: The Aral Sea in the former Soviet Union was once one of the most productive inland fisheries in the world. Today, because of large-scale upstream water diversions to irrigate cropland, the Sea supports no commercial fishery, 20 of 24 native fish species have disappeared and the Sea is only 40 percent its original size. The Snowy River in Australia has been the victim of a $630 million water transfer project implemented from 1950 through the 1970s that ultimately diverted 99 percent of the river s flow to the Murray River. Today, the Snowy is just a trickle. Saltwater intrudes the Snowy s estuary and migratory fish populations have been lost. 3

4 The Colorado River in the U.S., prior to 1935, supplied the Colorado delta with 6 to 18 billion cubic meters of water annually. Today, less than 0.7 billion cubic meters of water reaches the delta annually. Water transfers from the Colorado feed Denver, Phoenix and Southern California. Interbasin Transfer Impacts in Georgia Here in Georgia even seemingly insignificant transfers are already harming our rivers: The Flint River lost an estimated 11.7 MGD in 2008 to interbasin transfers. Low flows in the upper Flint basin have been eroded by 60% since the 1970s, with as much as half of this attributable to interbasin water transfers alone. Low flows on the Upper Flint could be improved by almost 50 percent if existing transfers were returned. Low flows prevented river outfitters in Upson County from putting some 4,000 customers on the river during Canoeists walk the Flint River during low flow conditions. Low flows on the Flint have resulted in lost income to outfitters servicing the river. The Chattahoochee lost 48 MGD in 2008 that s enough to supply the current daily demands of downstream communities in Newnan, LaGrange, and Columbus combined. The Coosa lost 9.6 MGD in 2008, but proposals associated with water sharing agreements with Alabama and a current reservoir plan in the Upper Etowah would allow the diversion of 100 MGD or more to Metro Atlanta. Such transfers would amount to more than 20 percent of the Coosa s volume at Rome during drought conditions. Because of these impacts and concerns over escalating interbasin transfers, stakeholders from across the state representing local governments, chambers of commerce, environmental organizations, industry and agriculture have expressed the need for interbasin transfer regulations. In fact, during the 2010 legislative session, 67 representatives and 22 senators sponsored legislation designed to regulate interbasin transfers. Interbasin Transfers Summary 2008* River Basin Chattahoochee Coosa Flint Ocmulgee Oconee Tallapoosa Tennessee Water Gained (mgd) Water Lost (mgd) Net (+/- mgd)** Source: Georgia Environmental Protection Division *2008 data is used to reflect transfers taking place during critical drought conditions. Actual transfer amounts vary from year to year depending on drought-related watering restrictions and conservation measures. In 2008, EPD documented 12 interbasin transfers of more than one million gallons per day. Of these transfers, ten occurred in the Metro Atlanta area. The remaining two occurred in Whitfield County and Carroll County. EPD documented a total of 28 interbasin transfers across the state. 4

5 Existing Interbasin Transfers in 2008* Water System Transferring Basin Transfer Source: Georgia Environmental Protection Division (Transfers greater than one million gallons per day) Net Annual Average Transfer (mgd) Future Interbasin Transfers County Receiving Transfer DeKalb County Chattahoochee to Ocmulgee 37.2 DeKalb, Rockdale, Henry Gwinnett County Chattahoochee to Ocmulgee 15.3 Gwinnett, Rockdale, Walton City of Gainesville Chattahoochee to Oconee 5.0 Hall City of Atlanta Chattahoochee to Flint 1.6 Fulton, Fayette, Clayton Carroll Co Auth. Chattahoochee to Tallapoosa 3.6 Carroll, Haralson Cobb Co Auth. Coosa to Chattahoochee 16.6 Cobb, Douglas, Paulding Clayton County Flint to Ocmulgee 5.7 Clayton City of Griffin Flint to Ocmulgee 3.6 Spalding Forsyth County Chattahoochee to Coosa 3.3 Forsyth, Dawson City of Cumming Chattahoochee to Coosa 1.3 Forsyth Newnan Water System Flint to Chattahoochee 4.0 Coweta Eastside Utilities Tennessee to Coosa 2.3 Whitfield In 2009, The Governor s Water Contingency Task Force considered numerous proposals to transfer water into the Metropolitan North Georgia Water Planning District (District). These proposals included transfers from lakes Burton and Hartwell in North Georgia, from the Tennessee River in Tennessee and from South Georgia aquifers. The Task Force dismissed these proposals as too expensive and too politically charged. However, proposals to move water from outside the District into the District are still being considered. Currently, the City of Atlanta is in discussions with private and public water providers to construct a water supply reservoir in the Etowah River basin in Dawson County (outside the District). The project as currently proposed would involve the transfer of 100 million gallons a day from the Coosa River Basin to the Chattahoochee basin via a 32-mile pipeline a transfer more than five times the amount of the existing Coosa-to-Chattahoochee transfer. The goal of the District is to minimize the existing transfers and the District s 2009 water supply plan indicates that there will not be a net increase in the existing interbasin transfers. However, the District concedes that this goal may be reconsidered if water supplies from Lakes Lanier and Allatoona are reduced by Federal court rulings or interstate agreements. 5

6 Georgia Laws Governing Water Withdrawals & Interbasin Transfers Three sections of the Official Code of Georgia address water withdrawal permits and interbasin transfers: OCGA and corresponding DNR Rule (Water Withdrawal Permitting) OCGA 12-5 Article 8 (Comprehensive Statewide Water Plan) OCGA 12-5 Article 10 (Metropolitan North Georgia Water Planning District) The following are excerpts of these laws: OCGA (Water Withdrawal Permitting) OCGA governs water withdrawals of more than 100,000 gallons per day. This code section, among other things, includes the following passage: (g) The division (EPD) shall take into consideration the extent to which any withdrawals, diversions, or impoundments are reasonably necessary, in the judgment of the director, to meet the applicant's needs and shall grant a permit which shall meet those reasonable needs; provided, however, that the granting of such permit shall not have unreasonably adverse effects upon other water uses in the area, including but not limited to public use, farm use, and potential as well as present use; OCGA also includes a specific section on interbasin transfers: (n) In the consideration of applications for permits which if granted would authorize the withdrawal and transfer of surface waters across natural basins, the director shall be bound by any factors related thereto under Article 8 of this chapter or any state-wide water plan provided pursuant thereto and the following requirements: (1) The director shall give due consideration to competing existing uses and applications for permits which would not involve interbasin 6 Does EPD consider the impacts of IBTs to donor and receiving basins in reviewing surface water withdrawal applications? A GWC evaluation of recent water withdrawal permits issued by EPD suggests that EPD is NOT considering the impacts of water transfers when issuing permits. Gwinnett County Case Study: In 2006, EPD issued a surface water withdrawal permit to Gwinnett County to pump up to 150 MGD from Lake Lanier. This permit involves the transfer of water from the Chattahoochee to the Ocmulgee River basin. EPD s record on the application and permit reveals no discussion or analysis of the impacts of the transfer. EPD personnel have stated that the agency does not consider the IBT criteria in the state water plan, or any other criteria, when evaluating such water withdrawal applications. The only additional condition EPD placed on the Gwinnett permit was a requirement that the permittee collect and annually report the annual average estimate of all water transferred out of or into the basin of origin. This example shows that, in practice, existing water withdrawal rules and regulations do not address potential impacts associated with interbasin transfers. This withdrawal permit involves a transfer of more than 20 MGD with no evaluation of the transfer s impacts. transfers of surface water and, subject to subsection (e) of this Code section, shall endeavor to allocate a reasonable supply of surface waters to such users and applicants; and (2) The director shall provide a press release regarding the proposed issuance of all permits authorizing such interbasin transfer of surface waters to newspapers of general circulation in all areas of the state which would be affected by such issuance. The press release shall be provided at least seven days before the issuance of these permits. If the director should determine that sufficient public interest warrants a public hearing on the issuance of these permits, he or she shall cause such a hearing to be held somewhere in the area affected prior to the issuance of these permits.

7 In summary, OCGA and the corresponding DNR Rule give only one specific mandate in regards to interbasin transfers EPD must issue a press release to newspapers in effected areas seven days prior to issuing the permit. This section of the code fails to give EPD clear and mandatory direction in issuing permits involving interbasin transfers. OCGA 12-5 Article 8 (Comprehensive State Water Plan) In creating the Comprehensive Statewide Water Plan, stakeholders from across the state, in cooperation with EPD, developed a list of 22 criteria that should be considered by EPD when evaluating water withdrawal permits involving interbasin transfers. These criteria give applicants for water withdrawal permits and EPD specific elements that may be considered when applying for permits involving interbasin transfers. Vetted by stakeholders statewide through a three-year planning process and approved by the General Assembly and Governor, they provide the kind of analysis that would produce facts that will aid regulators in determining if a proposed transfer is harmful and if there are alternatives to such a transfer. These criteria are listed below as they appear in the state water plan: a. Donor basin considerations i. The quantity of the proposed withdrawal and the stream flow of the donor basin, with special consideration for dry years and low flow conditions. ii. The current and reasonably foreseeable future water needs of the donor basin, with special consideration for dry years and low flow conditions. iii. Protection of water quality in the donor basin, with special consideration for dry years and low flow conditions. iv. Any offsetting increases in flow in the donor basin that may be arranged through permit conditions. v. The number of downstream river miles from which water will be diverted as a result of the transfer. vi. The connection between surface water and groundwater in the donor basin, and the effect of the proposed transfer on either or both. b. Receiving basin considerations i. Determination of whether or not the applicant s proposed use is reasonable, including consideration of whether the applicant has implemented water conservation practices and achieved reasonable water conservation goals. ii. Assessment of the wastewater treatment capacity of the receiving basin. iii. The supply of water presently available to the receiving basin, as well as the estimates of overall current water demand and the reasonable foreseeable future water needs of the receiving basin. iv. The beneficial impact of any proposed transfer, and the demonstrated capability of the applicant to effectively implement its responsibilities under the requested permit. v. The impact of the proposed transfer on water conservation. vi. The applicant s efforts to explore all reasonable options for use of reclaimed water and recycling of available sources to meet the needs of the receiving basin. vii. Assessment of the adequacy of treatment capacity and current water quality conditions. c. Considerations affecting both basins i. The economic feasibility, cost effectiveness, and environmental impacts of the proposed transfer in relation to alternative sources of water supply. ii. The cumulative impacts of the current and proposed interbasin transfers in the basin. iii. The requirements of the state and federal agencies with authority related to water resources. iv. The availability of water for responding to emergencies, including drought, in the donor basin and the receiving basin. v. The impact, whether beneficial or detrimental, on offstream and instream uses. 7

8 vi. The quantity, quality, location, and timing of water returned to the basin of donor basin, receiving basin, and basins downstream. vii. Impact on interstate water use. viii. The cumulative effect on the donor basin and the receiving basin of any water transfer or consumptive use that is authorized or forecasted. ix. Such other factors as are reasonably necessary to carry out the purposes of Georgia law. The Water Plan recommends that the DNR Board consider amending its rules and regulations to include these criteria, but these criteria are for consideration only and do not have the force of law. Furthermore, the wording in the State Water Plan stops short of requiring that EPD consider these criteria. Instead, the Plan recommends: The Board of Natural Resources will consider, upon adoption of this plan, amending its rules and regulations to provide that, in evaluating a permit application for a new interbasin transfer, the Director should consider the factors specified in DNR Rule (14) as well as the following To insure that EPD evaluates the criteria outlined in the plan, the word should in the recommendation cited above must be replaced with the word shall in any interbasin transfer rules and regulations or statutes. OCGA 12-5 Article 10 (Metropolitan North Georgia Water Planning District) The 2001 statute creating the Metropolitan North Georgia Water Planning District expressly prohibits the District from including in its water plans any interbasin transfer of water into the 15-county metropolitan Atlanta area. Therefore, any transfer from the Tennessee or Savannah river basins (or any other basins that do not run through the 15-county area) to metropolitan Atlanta has been, and remains, prohibited by law. The above prohibition for transfers into the Metro District, however, does not prevent an adjoining county from joining the District in order to transfer its water. For instance, if Dawson County (north of Forsyth County) chose to join the District, a proposed 100 million gallon a day transfer from that county into the Metro District would be permitted. Additionally, the statute cannot prevent an interbasin water transfer into the Metro District where the transfer occurs outside the District, but then flows downstream into the District. For instance, transfers could take place from the Savannah River basin in North Georgia that would supplement flows on the Chattahoochee and flows to Metro Atlanta. Furthermore, the District law does not protect against escalating water transfers that occur within the District boundaries yet still impact downstream water users. Additionally, nothing prevents the prohibition from being repealed. 8

9 Recommendations Georgia s existing statutory and regulatory framework does not adequately protect our rivers or communities downstream from harmful interbasin transfers. To protect our rivers and the economic interests of all Georgia communities, the General Assembly should enact, as statute, the interbasin transfer criteria outlined in the Comprehensive Statewide Water Plan. This statute should require that EPD consider these criteria when issuing permits involving interbasin transfers. These criteria were vetted by diverse statewide stakeholders involved in the three-year water planning process and approved by the General Assembly and Governor in In considering these regulations, the General Assembly should acknowledge these supporting facts: 1. Interbasin transfers are harming Georgia s rivers. 2. Proposals for large-scale, long-distance water transfers into Metro Atlanta are still being promoted and actively considered. 3. More than half of Georgia s population is directly dependent on interbasin transfers for a portion of their water supply. 4. Interbasin transfers are now, and will remain, an important part of our state s public water supply systems as 108 counties straddle more than one river basin. This is especially true in Metro Atlanta where most (90 percent by volume) of the state s water transfers are now executed. 5. Millions in downstream communities are impacted by interbasin transfers. 6. Any amount of interbasin transfer reduces the volume of water available to downstream communities for water supplies and wastewater assimilation, and thus, economic development. Water transfers fundamentally alter a community s ability to fully utilize its natural resources and may unfairly direct economic development to other communities. 7. Regulating interbasin transfers is likely to improve Georgia s chances of reaching a water sharing agreement with Alabama and Florida that includes a reasonable use of lakes Lanier and Allatoona. Without an agreement and access to water supplies in the federal reservoirs, state and local governments will be forced to spend billions on water infrastructure projects in North Georgia. 9 Water Battles? Interbasin transfers are one of Georgia s most contentious water management practices. To avoid intrastate conflict and resolve ongoing interstate conflicts, regulations are needed. 8. Regional Water Planning Councils created by the Comprehensive State Water Plan are not conducting studies regarding interbasin transfers. These Councils can only make recommendations about what kinds of water supply management practices a region will rely upon. It is expected that all Councils will include interbasin transfers among acceptable management practices when the plans are finalized. No additional facts on the impacts of interbasin transfers can be expected from the Councils beyond what currently exists. In fact, no comprehensive study of IBTs and their impacts has ever been conducted in Georgia. 9. Given the breadth to which interbasin transfers impact all citizens and given the contentiousness of the issue, development of interbasin transfer regulations should be a task undertaken by the General Assembly.