The Etowah River in Dawson Forest Wildlife Management Area could be impacted by a proposed 1200-acre reservoir on Shoal Creek.

In January, Gov. Nathan Deal charged a task force made up of seven state agency heads with the job of figuring out how to best spend $300 million to increase the state’s water supplies.

The charge included a mandate to “align state financial support for critical, cost-effective water supply projects.” After some six months of deliberations, the Task Force has concluded that the most cost-effective water supply projects available to the state—water conservation and efficiency measures–should NOT be eligible for funding under this initiative.

If this leaves you scratching your head, you’ll be even more puzzled when you hear the explanation: The lead agency on the Task Force, the Georgia Environmental Finance Authority (GEFA), explains that funding for such projects is already available and is not being fully utilized by local governments and water providers.

However, a quick check of GEFA records show that the agency has made $65 million in loans for conservation projects in the last five years—at a time when local governments are reluctant to take on any new debt. Clearly, local governments are interested in water efficiency.

But instead of allowing local governments and water providers the opportunity to identify the best projects for their communities—be they replacing water-wasting toilets or building a reservoir, the Task Force has instead placed priority on multi-million dollar reservoirs, ensuring that our tax dollars will go to lobbyists, lawyers, engineers and real estate interests that are the first in line to benefit from reservoir investments.

Two projects that will likely line up at the trough for this funding—Glades Reservoir in Hall County and Shoal Creek Reservoir in Dawson County—have a combined estimated price tag of $950 million. They will—if current yield studies prove accurate (and this is highly questionable)—produce 160 million gallons a day for metro Atlanta communities.

A lot of water, to be sure, but that same water can be secured through conservation measures at a fraction of the cost. A recent analysis of water conservation opportunities in metro Atlanta by Upper Chattahoochee Riverkeeper shows that the region could secure as much as 160 million gallons a day through just three conservation measures.

In 2010, Georgia adopted the Water Stewardship Act which mandated a modest list of statewide conservation measures. Among them was a requirement for local water providers to assess the amount of water leaking from their distribution pipes. The first of those reports are due to the state in January, but to date, the state has not dedicated any funding to help locals fix their leaks.

While the pipes continue to leak—often at a rate of more than one out of every four gallons—the state deems it “cost-effective” to invest millions in reservoir projects, only to have that expensive water pumped to systems where it will be spilled on the ground.

That’s not just bad business; it’s plain dumb

Gov. Deal and the Task Force need to go back to square one and allow communities choosing conservation to compete side-by-side with reservoir developers for a slice of this $300 million taxpayer pie.

GEFA is accepting public comments on the Governor’s Water Supply Program through Dec. 5 at http://www.georgiawatersupply.org/links/public-comment

Deer forage on the City Duck Pond, part of 60 acres of wetlands and floodplain that is slated for development as a regional shopping center.

In the recent blog about the Georgia Water Coalition’s Dirty Dozen we noted how the various corporate polluters on the Dirty Dozen list are examples of the national discontent over the failure of the American political-economic system that has come under fire from groups as diverse as the Occupy Wall Street protestors and the Tea Party.

Sadly, here in Rome we have a shining example of the failed system that has generated so much national anger. It is the story of 60 acres of land bisected by Burwell Creek that sits at the corner of Turner McCall Drive and Riverside Parkway. The story includes tales of a federal bureaucracy overstepping its authority, of laws manipulated by insiders and of ordinary citizens getting the shaft. Warning: If you don’t want get angry; read no further.

Best known as the home of the “Duck Pond,” the Burwell Creek Property is the only land in the Turner McCall/Shorter Ave. corridor that remains undeveloped. As you might guess, its location at a major intersection makes it highly valuable in the eyes of commercial developers. If it did not sit squarely in the floodplain and contain acres of wetlands as well as an abandoned city landfill, it would have been developed long ago.

Because of these unique conditions everyone assumed the land would remain in its current forested state—especially given that it sits between the city’s premiere park (Ridge Ferry Park) and historic Jackson Hill, another city-owned greenspace. In the late 1980s, the city had plans to create additional wetlands and wildlife habitat on the property. In fact, the Federal Highway Administration approved the widening of Riverside Parkway, in part, because it believed the wetlands and floodplain on the property would remain.

Fast forward to 2001 when the city commissioned a study of its Jackson Hill property, looking at how to use the land as a city park. The study recommended the creation of a “Central Park” stretching from Jackson Hill, through the Burwell Creek property, and on to Ridge Ferry Park.

But in 2005, local developer, Ledbetter Properties, approached the city with a plan to build a shopping center on the land. It was a bold—some might say far-fetched—proposal given the environmental issues associated with the property. Nevertheless, the City Commission approved the plan and Ledbetter Properties was set loose to obtain federal environmental permits that would make the development possible.

The company spent more than $1 million and three years later secured the permits. Here’s where the story takes an interesting turn. Ordinarily, if a developer is building on top of more than a half acre of wetlands or is disturbing more than 300 feet of streams, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) allows the public to review the development plans.

This project involved filling four acres of wetlands and relocating more than 2700 feet of Burwell Creek—all of it on publicly-owned land—yet the Corps approved this project without ever notifying the public. No one—not even an elected city official or city staff member, had the opportunity to review plans prior to the Corps’ approval.

What’s more, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), which reviewed Ledbetter Properties’ permit application, advised the Corps that a public notice and comment period should be required and questioned whether the project should be classified as a “Brownfield”—a status that would provide tax benefits to the developer because of existing environmental contamination associated with the old city landfill.

This excerpt from a May 2008 letter from EPA to the Corps of Engineers shows EPA's objection to the classification of this project as a Brownfield redevelopment.

Inexplicably, the Corps not only approved the project without public input, it approved it based on the assumption that USEPA was “sponsoring” the project as a Brownfield re-development.

How this happened remains something of a puzzle, but perhaps it’s another story to which America’s angry millions can relate: the “system” gets manipulated; a federal agency is unresponsive to the public and a public asset is converted for corporate gain—and the corporation gets a tidy tax break too boot.

With this going on, it’s no wonder we’re mad. It’s time the feds listened to ordinary Romans, including the more than 1000 that have signed a petition opposing this project. Anyone for a tea party at Burwell Creek or an Occupy Wetlands encampment?

In working with other members of the Georgia Water Coalition to develop our first-ever Dirty Dozen—a list of the most egregious offenses to our state’s water (http://www.garivers.org/gawater/dirtydozen.htm), I was struck by the number on this list that serve as perfect illustrations of our current national discontent:

Rayonier's 50 million gallon a day discharge to the Altamaha turns the river chocolate colored.

In South Georgia, a pulp mill operated by Rayonier has been fouling the Altamaha River for more than a half a century, destroying fisheries and dramatically changing the character of the river. Meanwhile, the government bureaucracy charged with protecting us and our rivers makes feeble attempts to correct the problem.

Thus far in 2011, Rayonier reports net profits of $220 million. But, the angler who lands a bass from the Altamaha can’t eat it because its flesh reeks of the paper mill.

The proposed Shoal Creek Reservoir project in the Upper Etowah River Basin is promoted by the local Etowah Water and Sewer Authority in partnership with the water utility giant, American Water. The company had revenue of $2.7 billion in 2010. Undoubtedly, Shoal Creek would be another revenue stream for the company, but at the expense of endangered fish and river flows for downstream communities.

Plant Hammond uses 590 million gallons a day from the Coosa River.

On the Coosa, Georgia Power has harnessed the river at Plant Hammond since 1954 to generate electricity, but to the detriment of water quality. It still uses the same out-dated, water-hogging cooling system from the 1950s. In 2010, the company enjoyed earnings of $950 million.

Is it any wonder folks are mad? Why is it OK for citizens to get dirty water when companies responsible for the dirty water make billions?

CRBI’s ongoing battle over a proposed 60-acre shopping center on environmentally-sensitive, citizen-owned land in Rome (http://www.coosa.org/issues-actions/hot-button-issues/romes-central-park) serves as yet another indictment of the “system.”

Here, a federal agency inexplicably issued a permit for the project without a public notice or a public comment period. The system worked great for a private developer, but ordinary citizens got the shaft.

Making money is a good thing; at CRBI we celebrate every successful fundraiser. But making money at the expense of the very resources and the communities that provide that income? That’s wrong. We need to right these wrongs and that starts with some well-placed anger.

A Native American fish weir on the Etowah River in Cherokee County. During low flow periods of the summer and early fall these ancient structures are exposed.

In recent months, reservoirs proposed in the Upper Etowah River Basin have gotten much media attention, and with good reason. The proposed Shoal Creek and Calhoun Creek reservoirs in Dawson and Lumpkin counties should be watched closely by all downstream who depend upon the Etowah River and by every taxpayer in the state.

You’ve heard of the infamous “bridge to nowhere;” these reservoirs might well be viewed in the same light—dams to nowhere that epitomize wasteful use of public dollars.

The price tag for the proposed 1200-acre Shoal Creek reservoir in Dawson Forest Wildlife Management Area is $650 million—more than four times the cost of the recently completed Hickory Log Reservoir in the Etowah River Basin. The smaller Calhoun Creek project is estimated to cost $150 million.

Yes, both projects will leverage investment from private companies, but you can bet these private companies will come after state loans that have been made available with the passage of legislation earlier this year that enables public-private reservoir partnerships. In fact, right now a task force commissioned by Gov. Nathan Deal is working on a system for doling out more than $300 million that will be made available to such projects over the next four years.

Calhoun Creek, which runs along the Dawson/Lumpkin county line and empties into the Etowah River, has attracted the attention of a private reservoir company looking to cash in on the state's new public-private reservoir partnership initiative.

But, you ask, aren’t we in dire need of more water? Aren’t such investments justified?

That depends on the outcome of ongoing litigation over the use of the big federal reservoirs—Allatoona and Lanier—and even more importantly, how efficiently we use the supplies that are currently available to us.

If Georgia gains a reasonable use of Allatoona and Lanier the need for most of these proposed reservoirs evaporates. And, if Georgia invests in fixing its leaking pipes, replacing old water-wasting toilets, fixtures and appliances and using our water wisely we can greatly extend our supplies—and at a fraction of the cost of building new dams.

Georgia’s Environmental Protection Division has determined that conservation and efficiency measures cost from $0.46 to $250 for every 1000 gallons saved. Building a reservoir, on the otherhand, can cost $4000 for every 1000 gallons. The Shoal Creek project tallies out at over $8000 for every 1000 gallons.

In other words, don’t buy the Cadillac when a Chevy will get you to the same place.

Each day, in communities across Georgia millions of gallons of water leak from pipes before ever reaching a customer—in some communities the losses amount to more than one out of every four gallons.

Yet, rather than placing a priority on stopping leaks and making more efficient use of our water, it appears our state will instead invest millions on high ticket reservoirs to pump water to those still leaking pipes and water-wasting plumbing fixtures. That’s just bad business.

But, these dams don’t stop at draining public coffers; they’ll also drain our rivers. As proposed the Shoal Creek project would remove up to 100 million a day (MGD) from the Etowah and pipe it to other portions of Metro Atlanta via an interbasin transfer. That’s more than five times the amount that is currently diverted from the Etowah.

To put it in perspective, the average flow on the Etowah River near the site of the proposed reservoir during the low-flow month of September is just 121 MGD. Even during the high flows of the winter, the Etowah tops out at an average of 372 MGD.

Mining for gold in the Upper Etowah is a popular hobby, but today's most ambitious Etowah prospectors are the private reservoir companies searching for public dollars to build their dams.

The private companies that want to profit off these reservoirs will tell you that their projects will help “regulate” flows downstream and insure water even during drought, but that is a tall task when the water removed from the system is never returned. You simply can’t divert 25 percent or more of the river’s flow each day and still maintain flows that mimic natural and healthy conditions.

Unfortunately, current state law makes it very difficult for communities downstream to stop these water diversion projects once state environmental regulators approve them. Thus, now is the time for those in Canton, Marietta, Dallas, Cartersville and Rome (all communities who depend on the Etowah) to be vigilant and say “No” to these money- wasting, river-draining proposals.

These projects are dams to nowhere. Until we get our fiscal house (and the water closet inside it) in order, they are pure folly.

Shoal Creek, home to the federally protected Etowah and Cherokee darters, has been targeted as the site of a 1200 acre reservoir.

On June 29, Metro Atlanta breathed a collective sigh of relief when a federal court overturned a 2009 court ruling that could have shut off the spigots from Lake Lanier.

In that initial ruling U.S. District Judge Paul Magnuson ruled that since Congress did not authorize the lake for water supply when it was constructed, Metro Atlanta (and communities around the lake) had no right to use it as such. Why Congress didn’t include water supply as one of the dam’s stated purposes in the 1950s is beyond me.

Mayor William B. Hartsfield had a airport and gorilla named in his honor. His lobbying to get Buford Dam built should have warranted consideration for naming the lake in his honor as well.

For Congress received many visits from Atlanta Mayor William B. Hartsfield, and his primary interest in the dam project was water supply. He knew that during droughts, the Chattahoochee at the city’s water intake became perilously low, and he understood that a giant bathtub in the Appalachian foothills could guarantee flows downstream. While no Georgia community took water from the lake when it was initially constructed, Atlanta was immediately dependent on it.

During a drought in the summer of 1958 (the year the lake became full), the Atlanta Constitution toasted Buford Dam and Mayor Hartsfield: “Because of the reserve supplies of water turned into the river by Buford Dam, the river has been in full flush of health. Without the dam, Atlanta water users surely would have been on ration basis weeks ago.”

The June 29 Circuit Court ruling has been heralded as a great legal victory for Georgia, but don’t go celebrating too fast. Even if the ruling withstands appeals from our neighboring states, Metro Atlanta communities will never have unlimited access to Lake Lanier. Adequate flows to keep the river healthy and meet downstream uses will have to be maintained.

That “Culture of Conservation” that received so much attention when Atlanta was under the gun of the Magnuson decision must remain. During the past two years, Georgia passed landmark water conservation legislation and Metro Atlanta communities stepped up their conservation efforts. But, there’s still more that needs to be accomplished through conservation, and Georgia shouldn’t allow this “victory” to devolve into a culture of complacency.

Every drop Metro Atlanta conserves is a drop that won’t have to come from the Coosa River Basin through water transfers and diversion schemes, and there’s been a rash of those proposed since the threat of losing Lanier was imposed.

What the new legal landscape means for the Coosa River Basin and reservoir/water transfer schemes like those proposed for Calhoun Creek and Shoal Creek in the Upper Etowah River Basin remains to be seen. But, certainly the pressing need for these Lanier alternatives is lessened. And, that’s good news for the Coosa and the state. Replacing Lanier with new reservoirs would be an environmental and financial disaster, costing the state hundreds of millions of dollars and likely wiping out large populations of federally protected fish species.

Thus, investing in conservation and working cooperatively with our downstream neighbors reaps multiple benefits—we save money and we save our ecological heritage.

Meanwhile Alabama Gov. Robert Bentley has said that Alabama will appeal the decision to the full Circuit Court, and litigation in the Alabama-Coosa-Tallapoosa (ACT) River Basin between Georgia and Alabama is still pending.

Lake Allatoona and Dam are at the heart of litigation in the Coosa River Basin between Alabama and Georgia

That litigation has been delayed by a federal judge to allow Georgia and Alabama to negotiate a settlement, but attorneys representing the state of Alabama told the court after the 11^th Circuit decision that Alabama wanted the lawsuit on the ACT to proceed because continued negotiations with Georgia have failed to produce a settlement. Georgia attorneys countered by urging the judge to continue the delay. In the Coosa case, the operation of Lake Allatoona as water supply is at the heart of the dispute. Metro Atlanta transfers water from Allatoona and the Etowah to meet about 14 percent of its water needs. Currently the total water diversion amounts to about 16 MGD, but earlier proposed agreements between the states would have allowed a transfer for up to 150 MGD.

By court order, the current negotiations are being held in private. Details of any proposed agreements remain a mystery.

Shoal Creek in the Dawson Forest Wildlife Management Area is one Upper Etowah River tributary that has been targeted for reservoir development by private companies.

During the same week in late March that turkey hunting season opened, the Georgia General Assembly voted to let loose a whole new species of turkeys in the North Georgia woods—land speculators, strutting about looking to gobble up land for new water supply reservoirs.

Even before the bill that would facilitate public-private water supply projects passed the House by a narrow two-vote margin, reports were already coming out of the North Georgia hills about private companies sweet talking landowners along our creeks and rivers. “Sell to us now,” they said, “and you’ll get top dollar. Wait, and the government is going to take your land by eminent domain for pennies on the dollar.”

The day the bill passed the House, the Dahlonega Nugget published a report documenting such tactics (read the story in the Nugget). Since then, property owners in other parts of North Georgia have called the CRBI office recounting similar stories.

Here’s how our new law could work: a private company pitches a reservoir project to a local government. The local government buys in and together they can go hat-in-hand to the state government for financing.

Ideally, the state agency tasked with doling out the reservoir money, Georgia’s Environmental Facilities Authority, will act judiciously, providing these limited funds for only the most needed and most economically and environmentally feasible projects.

But, the cynic in me says that our state and local public dollars will wind up funding unnecessary water supply projects proposed by politically connected individuals and businesses with one goal in mind—to make money, not to provide essential water.

What’s worse, if the public-private partnership doesn’t seek state funding, here’s what could happen: property taken through eminent domain could be transferred to the private partner and that private partner could then build the reservoir and sell lakefront homes built on the land of the banished original owners. The private company makes money selling water and land.

Unfortunately, a veto of this potentially dangerous new law is unlikely. The proposal has Gov. Deal’s full support because it offers another “tool” to meet Georgia’s seemingly insatiable thirst.

Over the past decade, Georgia has spent millions on state and regional water planning through what has been a very open and public process answering critical questions about how much water we have, how much we need and where we are going to get it.

This sudden injection of private influence could easily de-rail this planning. For instance, in Lumpkin and Dawson counties during the past two years, two reservoir proposals have surfaced that never appear in any state or regional water plans—the Shoal Creek project in Dawson County and the Calhoun Creek project in Lumpkin County (where property owners have been approached with unscrupulous land grabbing tactics).

Private companies—not local governments—are behind both, and it should be noted that neither are intended for use by local residents in Dawson and Lumpkin counties. Instead the water would be sent out of the Etowah River basin to Forsyth County and other portions of Metro Atlanta through massive water diversions—a plan that has repercussions for Lake Allatoona and downstream communities like Canton, Marietta, Cartersville and Rome that depend upon the Etowah River.

We should enter this bold new era in dam building cautiously. We need to weed out the turkeys in the bunch and fund only the projects that make the most sense—for water supply, downstream communities, the health of our rivers and our state’s limited financial resources.

To learn more about the Shoal Creek Reservoir proposal in Dawson Forest Wildlife Management Area visit http://www.coosa.org/issues-actions/hot-button-issues

Read an Atlanta Journal Constitution story about this issue.

Read a Dawson County News story about this issue and a CRBI-Sierra Club-sponsored hiking trip to Shoal Creek.

But, after two months in office, rather than making progress, the rhetoric coming from either side of the Chattahoochee doesn’t sound promising. In large part, this is due to two missteps by Gov. Nathan Deal’s administration that have effectively fouled up water talks before they could even begin.

In January, Deal’s Environmental Protection Division failed to inform Georgia’s Department of Natural Resources Board of a letter from Alabama’s Department of Environmental Management prior to an important Board vote on new rules regarding the highly controversial practice of interbasin transfers.

ADEM’s letter characterized the rules as only paying “lip service” to the potential impacts of moving water between river basins and urged Georgia to adopt a stronger rule. Some 1000 Georgians sent letters urging the same. EPD received only 21 letters in support of the rule, but dismissed the opposition letters as mostly “form” letters. The weak rule was adopted. Instead of passing a rule that would guarantee protections for downstream water users, the Board choose “flexibility” over substance.

Just as Gov. Deal was preparing to sit down at the negotiating table, his administration tells Alabama: “You’re not the boss of me!”  It’s a snub that did not go unnoticed.

Then came Deal’s executive order aimed at building new water supply reservoirs—a solution sure to incite Alabama. At this news, Alabama Gov. Robert Bentley told reporters that Alabama would renew talks only if Georgia held off on its reservoir plans.

Both of these actions by the Deal administration are bad news for Georgia, and in particular Metro Atlanta. For if Deal cannot strike a deal with Alabama and Florida on water sharing by July 2012, a federal court ruling will go into effect that removes Lake Lanier on the Chattahoochee as a water supply for the region.

Alabama and Florida have Georgia over a barrel; we need to win concessions from them and we’ll get that by playing nice—not by ignoring their letters.

Failure to come to an agreement with Alabama and Florida that includes some reasonable use of Lake Lanier will be a fiscal and environmental disaster for Georgia.

Indeed, without the use of the federal reservoir, Georgia will be forced to build its own water storage capacity. A Georgia Water Coalition analysis of seven reservoir projects currently in the works shows that these projects will cost $1.5 billion and will yield 300 million gallons a day. Deal’s proposal to dedicate $300 million to reservoirs over the next four years is a drop in that bucket. Dedicated to one project, it might be enough to build one of reservoir.

By comparison, keeping an additional two feet of water in Lake Lanier will yield 26 billion gallons of storage capacity. And, this could be accomplished at comparatively little cost.

New reservoirs would wipe out federally protected fish and alter healthy river flows because many involve permanently removing water from rivers through interbasin transfers. The proposed Shoal Creek reservoir in the Etowah River Basin would send as much as 80 million gallons a day to Metro Atlanta without any returns to the Etowah.

Deal has gotten off on the wrong foot, but he can correct these gaffes. He can support legislative efforts to improve the weak interbasin transfer rules adopted by the DNR Board, and he can, as requested by Gov. Bentley, hold off on new reservoirs.

Instead, the $46 million he’s dedicated to reservoirs in this year’s budget should be directed to water efficiency measures like fixing leaking pipes in water supply systems—an unfunded measure that was included in Gov. Perdue’s water conservation bill adopted last year.

That’s how you play nice with Alabama and Florida. Like it or not, thanks to a federal court ruling those neighbors are now high stakes players in Georgia’s internal water games. We must listen to them, and we must show them we are serious about protecting their interests.

Interbasin Transfers are often referred to as "water grabs" You can sign an online petition calling on Georgia's leaders to regulate interbasin transfers at www.nowatergrabs.com

Last fall, representatives from the Metro Atlanta Chamber of Commerce visited Rome and assured Rome’s business leaders with the Greater Rome Chamber of Commerce that they were not interested in taking water from the Coosa River Basin.

Greater Rome’s business community–like those in many other Georgia cities–wasn’t fooled. They know that Metro Atlanta’s water supply depends heavily on its ability to move water between the area’s five major river basins—including the Coosa. Statewide, water transfers occur in 28 counties, but Metro Atlanta is responsible for more than 90 percent of the total volume of those transfers.

The Chambers of Commerce in Georgia’s downstream hinterlands know that Metro Atlanta’s future will likely depend upon some level of interbasin transfers. That’s a given.

It’s not that downstream communities aren’t willing to share; by and large, they are. Their concern is that currently there are no regulations in place that assure these communities that their interests will be considered before massive water diversions are permitted by state environmental regulators.

Unfortunately, Metro Atlanta business leaders continue to make claims that attempt to undermine efforts to adequately regulate interbasin transfers. Their actions suggest an attitude of  “give us the water and the rest of you be damned.”

Take for instance the “facts” contained in a briefing document produced by the “Georgia Water Alliance”–a shadow organization of the Metro Chamber.

The document’s “facts” stretch the limits of reality. Here’s just a few:

“No Georgia river basin is adversely affected by interbasin transfers.”

Fact: The Flint River has seen its low flows reduced by 60 percent since the 1970s, in part because of water transfers. Canoe and kayak outfitters on the Flint lost some 4000 customers in 2010 because of low flows. The river’s volume could be improved by 50 percent if the Flint’s water transfers were returned.

Here’s another gem:

“There are no existing or planned interbasin water transfers into the Metropolitan North Georgia Water Planning District.”

Fact: the City of Atlanta is currently considering a reservoir and water transfer project in Dawson County that would send 100 MGD of the Etowah to Metro Atlanta—more than five times the current amount diverted from the river. In fact, some Metro boosters are already urging legislators to repeal a nine-year-old state law prohibiting water transfers into Metro Atlanta.

Interbasin transfers in Georgia. The Chattahoochee and the Coosa are the biggest losers.

And, here’s some fuzzy math:

The impacts of the existing interbasin transfers on Georgia rivers are very minor. Although about 1 million Georgians use water from interbasin transfers, less than 2% of the water withdrawn in Georgia is related to interbasin transfers.

Fact: There are 28 counties in Georgia that depend upon interbasin transfers for a portion of their water supply. The population of those 28 counties is 5.5 million–more than half Georgia’s population. Millions more in downstream communities could be impacted by these water diversions.

The claim that less than two percent of the water withdrawn in Georgia is related to interbasin transfers is misleading as well. All “the water withdrawn in Georgia” includes withdrawals from thermo-electric power generation and agricultural irrigation.  If you consider only public water supply withdrawals from our rivers, streams and lakes, interbasin transfers account for about 10 percent of withdrawals.

The Georgia Water Alliance “facts” attempt to paint interbasin transfers as a benign water management practice. Without proper regulations, this presumably benign practice can become a malignant growth.

And finally:

“Since the DNR Board is to develop rules for interbasin transfers, there is no need for additional interbasin transfer requirements to be legislated.”

That’s a half truth. The Department of Natural Resources Board, under the direction of EPD, is now developing rules for interbasin transfers, but these rules merely suggest that EPD “should” consider a list of criteria when evaluating new water transfers. The DNR Board will vote on these rules at its Jan. 26 meeting.

Without stronger language (like a “shall” consider), interbasin transfers that might harm our rivers and downstream communities may continue with little oversight.

Metro Atlanta will continue to utilize water transfers to meet its water needs. That’s a fact. But these transfers should never come at a cost to our rivers or downstream communities. Without meaningful regulations, that threat is closer to fact than fiction.

The purpose of the reservoir is not to supply Dawsonville or Dawson County residents with water. No, the County already has its own reservoir project in the works for its future water needs. The purpose is to pump some 100 million gallons a day to the City and other Metro communities via a four-foot diameter pipe stretching some 30 miles.

Dawson County’s altruism is commendable. Proponents of the project tout it as a way to “solve” Atlanta’s water crisis in the event that a federal court ruling stands and Lake Lanier’s abundant supply is made off limits to Atlanta and its surrounding neighbors.

But, is the county’s altruism really in the best interest of Dawson County or the rest of the region? How much will Dawson County residents and other Etowah River Basin communities have to sacrifice to provide the City of Atlanta with water it may or may not need?

Hikers pause by Shoal Creek in the Dawson Forest Wildlife Management Area during a CRBI/Georgia Conservancy-sponsored trip to learn more about the reservoir proposal.

The answer: quite a lot.

This project is a bad deal for Dawson County residents; a worse deal for communities downstream on the Etowah and a catastrophic deal for the federally protected fish that live in Dawson Forest’s streams and rivers.

As noted above, the proposed Shoal Creek Reservoir will never supply water for Dawson County. Thanks to the Etowah Water & Sewer Authority’s well-thought-out plan for the Russell Creek reservoir, Dawson County has secure water resources well into the future.

The 100 million gallons a day that the Etowah Water & Sewer Authority wants to pump to Atlanta is almost as much water as flows down the Etowah on an average day in September; and it’s water that will never be returned to the Etowah after use in Metro Atlanta.

There in lies the rub for downstream communities. The proposed transfer of 100 MGD to Atlanta is more than five times what the Metro region currently diverts from the Etowah. It’s 100 MGD that will not fill up Lake Allatoona and will never be available to places like Canton, Marietta, Cartersville, Dallas and Rome.

Etowah Darter--Shoal Creek is one of the last healthy strongholds for this federally protected fish that is found nowhere else in the world.

As for the fish—the Cherokee and Etowah darters that reside in Shoal Creek—they cannot survive in lakes. The dam and reservoir would wipe out the core of Dawson County’s natural heritage.  Shoal Creek is one of the last healthy strongholds for these fish which are found no where else in the world.

For Dawson County residents, there are other considerations. Under current state law, the only way for a water transfer from Dawson County to Metro Atlanta to be legal, would be for Dawson County to join the Metropolitan North Georgia Water Planning District. As a member of the District, Dawson County would be subject to more stringent environmental regulations, including the District’s 75-foot stream buffer laws—three times the width of existing state buffer laws for Dawson County.

State law also requires a 150-foot no-development buffer along streams that feed water supply reservoirs. All of the land that drains to Shoal Creek would be subject to these laws—that’s about 17 percent of Dawson County’s land area.

What’s more the reservoir as proposed would necessitate the acquisition of an additional 500 acres of private land on the north side of Dawson Forest.

Eric Prowell with the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service shows off an Etowah darter at Shoal Creek. The site pictured here would be inundated by the Shoal Creek Dam.

The reservoir would not be a mini “Lake Lanier.” It would be managed for water supply purposes; recreational uses would not be a priority. In fact, motorized vessels, aside from electric motors, would not be permitted. Any claims that this will be a recreational amenity for Dawson County residents and visitors on a scale larger than the existing opportunities in Dawson Forest must be viewed with much skepticism.

Finally, the claims that this reservoir will facilitate the permanent protection of the remaining 8,000 acres of the City of Atlanta’s Dawson Forest may be wishful thinking. The City of Atlanta has indicated that it is still considering Dawson Forest as a site for its second airport. With or without Shoal Creek Reservoir, Dawson County residents could still see an airport built on the land.

Insuring enough clean water for downstream communities should be an essential part of every candidate's platform

The primaries are complete, the run offs decided. Fall is closing fast, bringing with it those traditional rites of the season–tailgating, leaf peeping, and this election year, undoubtedly, mudslinging.

Candidates and electorate take note: you can’t sling mud without some water.

And, in this election season, water is taking top billing along with the economy and education. Flip to the Roy Barnes and Nathan Deal websites and you’ll see “Water” or “Water Crisis” among the tabs.

Both gubernatorial candidates are no strangers our state’s battles with Alabama and Florida over water rights. Barnes dealt with tri-state negotiations for four years as Governor; likewise Deal has periodically entered the fray in his capacity in Congress.

Water is getting top billing in this election because of last year’s federal court ruling that would effectively cut off Lake Lanier on the Chattahoochee as a water supply for Metro Atlanta.

The next Governor will have until July 2012 (just 18 months from the time he takes office) to 1. reach a water sharing agreement with Alabama and Florida and 2. convince Congress to officially designate Lake Lanier as a “water supply” reservoir. Failure on this front could lead to catastrophic impacts for Metro Atlanta…and the rest of the state if the metropolis comes probing with straws into river basins beyond the Chattahoochee.

Accomplishing these tasks will not be easy, but if you are looking for the candidate most likely to succeed, pay close attention to how the candidates field questions about Georgia’s intrastate water conflicts—those that pit Metro Atlanta against places like Rome, Augusta and Columbus.

The Etowah River is the target of an interbasin transfer that removes water from Lake Allatoona and ships it to Metro Atlanta. Around 16 million gallons a day are lost through this interbasin transfer.

Before they appease Alabama and Florida as governor, these candidates must assure Georgia’s downstream communities that their water interests will not be forfeited to continue the status quo of unmitigated growth in Metro Atlanta.

Recognizing this, in July on the one year anniversary of the federal court ruling, Georgia’s Riverkeepers (including the Coosa River Basin Initiative) laid out a course for solving Georgia’s water crisis and called on the candidates to return to the three “Rs”—respect, reveal and reduce.

The next governor must demonstrate respect for all downstream communities by demanding efficient use of water and regulating water transfers; he must reject the ongoing secret water negotiations with our neighboring states, revealing an open process that engages all stakeholders; and he must reduce water use in Georgia, particularly in Metro Atlanta, by demanding aggressive conservation measures beyond the modest steps taken by the 2010 legislature.

Where do Barnes and Deal stand?

Both candidates support the construction of more reservoirs, though on the Barnes’ website, the reservoir rhetoric is tempered with calls for conservation and efficiency.

Both candidates have publicly opposed water transfers, though Deal has waffled. He told a meeting of the Metro Atlanta Chamber of Commerce that he supported interbasin transfers, but when locals in Augusta worried about transfers from the Savannah River got their teeth into him, he clarified his position, saying that he opposed long-distance water transfers.

Both talk tough on the water wars, but extend an olive branch to our neighbors.

From the Barnes website: “Simply waiting for a legal resolution is not an option…Once we show our neighboring states that Georgia is serious about reducing its burden on Lake Lanier, we will position ourselves for more favorable congressional and legal outcomes.”

From the Deal website: “As governor, he will take his experience with water issues to work cooperatively with the next governors of Florida and Alabama to reach a resolution that protects Georgia’s right to much-needed water.”

When they stump in Rome listen for the three Rs—respect, reveal and reduce, and ask them point blank: As governor, will you support regulations of water transfers that protect downstream communities? Their answer should be an emphatic “YES!”

For without water, there’s no mudslinging—just dust kicking.

To view a slide show of Roy Barnes Aug. 16 visit to Rome at the Rome News-Tribune website, visit

http://www.romenews-tribune.com/pages/multimedia_slideshows#

To view a slide show of Nathan Deal’s Aug. 14 visit to Rome on Aug. 4. at the Rome News-Tribune website, visit

http://www.romenews-tribune.com/pages/multimedia_slideshows#

Joe Cook

Aug. 18, 2010