Acknowledgements We owe special thanks to those individuals who gave their time, expertise, and insights to create this Plan. They brought diverse perspectives to create sound, achievable goals for the Metropolitan North Georgia Water Planning District. These people include participants in the Technical Coordinating Committee, the six Basin Advisory Councils, the Georgia Environmental Protection Division, MACTEC Engineering Consulting, Inc., the District planning staff provided by the Atlanta Regional Commission, and those who provided written comments on the plans. We would also like to acknowledge and thank members of the Water Supply and Water Conservation Management Planning team whose valuable contributions were essential in developing this Plan. These include: Maddaus Water Management, McKenzie MacGregor Incorporated, and USInfrastructure, Inc. WATER SUPPLY AND CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT PLAN DATE: SEPTEMBER 2003 P:\2317-002\Task 13\Final Report Sep. 2003\Final Word\Acknowledgements WS.doc Table of Contents Page EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Plan Highlights ...................................................................................................................ES-2 Introduction......................................................................................................................... ES-3 Planning Process............................................................................................................ES-3 Technical Coordinating Committee and Basin Advisory Councils Participation ES-4 Key Planning Assumptions..........................................................................................ES-5 Policy Goals ....................................................................................................................ES-5 Integration of Planning Efforts ....................................................................................ES-5 Existing Water Supply and Treatment Facilities............................................................ES-6 Existing Water Supplies................................................................................................ES-6 Existing Water Treatment Facilities ............................................................................ES-7 Existing Water Supply Interconnections....................................................................ES-7 Existing Interbasin Transfers .......................................................................................ES-7 Water Demand Projections ...............................................................................................ES-8 Water Conservation Analysis ...........................................................................................ES-9 Water Supply Issues.........................................................................................................ES-10 Water Supply Source Evaluation ...................................................................................ES-10 Alternatives Development and Evaluation ..................................................................ES-11 Water Conservation Program .........................................................................................ES-12 Water Supply Facilities ....................................................................................................ES-12 Water Systems Interconnection Recommendations ....................................................ES-15 Local Planning Recommendations.................................................................................ES-16 Flexibility within the Plan ...............................................................................................ES-17 Legislative and Regulatory Recommendations............................................................ES-17 Governance and Inter-jurisdictional Collaboration.....................................................ES-18 Funding .............................................................................................................................. ES-18 Education and Public Awareness...................................................................................ES-19 Implementation Actions ..................................................................................................ES-20 Assessment of Progress ...................................................................................................ES-21 Conclusion .........................................................................................................................ES-21 WATER SUPPLY AND WATER CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT PLAN DATE: SEPTEMBER 2003 P:\2317-002\TASK 13\FINAL REPORT SEP. 2003\FINAL WORD\WS TABLE OF CONTENT WATER.DOC TOC-1 Table of Contents SECTION 1 INTRODUCTION Planning Process................................................................................................................... 1-3 Water Supply and Conservation Management Planning Steps................................ 1-3 Public Participation .............................................................................................................. 1-3 Policy Goals ........................................................................................................................... 1-4 Planning Assumptions......................................................................................................... 1-4 Report Organization............................................................................................................. 1-5 Integration of District Planning Efforts ............................................................................. 1-6 SECTION 2 PLAN OVERVIEW Critical Strategies.................................................................................................................. 2-2 Meeting 2030 Demands ....................................................................................................... 2-2 Features of the Plan .............................................................................................................. 2-3 Water Conservation Program ............................................................................................. 2-8 Water Supply Facilities ........................................................................................................ 2-8 Water System Interconnections .......................................................................................... 2-9 Local Planning Recommendations..................................................................................... 2-9 Flexibility Recommendations ............................................................................................. 2-9 Regulatory Recommendations ......................................................................................... 2-10 Governance Recommendations........................................................................................ 2-10 Funding................................................................................................................................ 2-10 Education and Public Awareness..................................................................................... 2-11 Integration with Other District Plans .............................................................................. 2-11 SECTION 3 EXISTING WATER SUPPLY AND TREATMENT CONDITIONS Existing Water Supplies....................................................................................................... 3-1 Interbasin Transfers......................................................................................................... 3-4 Planned Reservoirs.......................................................................................................... 3-5 Existing Water Treatment Facilities ................................................................................... 3-6 Existing Interconnections .................................................................................................... 3-9 SECTION 4 WATER DEMAND PROJECTIONS Population and Employment Projections ......................................................................... 4-2 Population Projection Methodology............................................................................. 4-3 Employment Projection Methodology ......................................................................... 4-4 Data Collected and Used ..................................................................................................... 4-5 Methods of Analysis and Projection .................................................................................. 4-9 Existing Water Use by County..................................................................................... 4-12 Baseline Projections with Existing Conservation ........................................................... 4-13 Final Projected Water Demands with Future Conservation ........................................ 4-14 WATER SUPPLY AND WATER CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT PLAN DATE: SEPTEMBER 2003 P:\2317-002\TASK 13\FINAL REPORT SEP. 2003\FINAL WORD\WS TABLE OF CONTENT WATER.DOC TOC-2 Table of Contents SECTION 5 WATER CONSERVATION ANALYSIS Existing Water Conservation Plans and Programs.......................................................... 5-1 Ultra-Low Flow (ULF) Plumbing Fixture Requirements........................................... 5-5 Georgia Drought Management Plan............................................................................. 5-5 Evaluation of Alternate Water Conservation Measures ................................................. 5-5 Menu of Potential Water Conservation Measures ...................................................... 5-5 Screening Process ............................................................................................................ 5-6 Overview of the Evaluation Methodology .................................................................. 5-7 Comparison of Measures.............................................................................................. 5-10 SECTION 6 WATER RESOURCES ISSUES AND POTENTIAL SOURCE EVALUATION Water Resources Issues........................................................................................................ 6-1 Water Supply Issues............................................................................................................. 6-3 In-Stream Flow Protection Policy.................................................................................. 6-5 Water Supply Efficiency and Reliability ...................................................................... 6-5 Water Quality Issues ............................................................................................................ 6-7 Water Supply Watershed Protection ............................................................................ 6-7 Proposed Groundwater Rule ......................................................................................... 6-7 Downstream Users .......................................................................................................... 6-8 Emerging Contaminants................................................................................................. 6-8 Treatment Standards....................................................................................................... 6-9 Other Water Resources Planning Issues............................................................................ 6-9 Water Supply Contingencies ......................................................................................... 6-9 Environmental Justice ................................................................................................... 6-10 Potential Source Evaluation .............................................................................................. 6-10 Potential Surface Water Sources.................................................................................. 6-11 Potential Groundwater Sources................................................................................... 6-16 Water Reuse.................................................................................................................... 6-17 Conclusions ......................................................................................................................... 6-21 SECTION 7 ALTERNATIVES DEVELOPMENT AND EVALUATION Public Participation .............................................................................................................. 7-1 Evaluation Criteria Development ...................................................................................... 7-1 Stepped Process for Developing and Evaluating Solutions ........................................... 7-2 SECTION 8 WATER CONSERVATION PROGRAM Recommended Actions and Milestones ............................................................................ 8-1 SECTION 9 PLANNED WATER SUPPLY FACILITIES Recommended Actions and Milestones ............................................................................ 9-1 Capital Improvement Phasing Plans ................................................................................. 9-4 SECTION 10 WATER SYSTEM INTERCONNECTIONS Establishing Interconnection Reliability Targets ........................................................... 10-1 Summary of Recommendations ....................................................................................... 10-2 Implementation Actions .................................................................................................... 10-5 WATER SUPPLY AND WATER CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT PLAN DATE: SEPTEMBER 2003 P:\2317-002\TASK 13\FINAL REPORT SEP. 2003\FINAL WORD\WS TABLE OF CONTENT WATER.DOC TOC-3 Table of Contents SECTION 11 LOCAL PLANNING RECOMMENDATIONS Develop Local Water Management Plans ....................................................................... 11-1 SECTION 12 PLAN FLEXIBILITY Essential Elements of the WS Plan ................................................................................... 12-1 Reallocation of Lake Lanier and Lake Allatoona for Water Supply....................... 12-2 Intensification of Water Conservation Efforts ........................................................... 12-2 Construction of at Least Five New Reservoirs .......................................................... 12-2 Sharing of Water Resources Within the District to Meet Local Needs .................. 12-3 Reclamation of Water by Indirect Potable Reuse through Lake Lanier................. 12-4 Interconnection of District Systems to Provide Reliability for Emergencies ........ 12-4 Flexible Elements of the WS Plan ..................................................................................... 12-4 Plant Capacities.............................................................................................................. 12-4 Phasing............................................................................................................................ 12-5 Site-Specific Issues......................................................................................................... 12-5 SECTION 13 LEGISLATIVE AND REGULATORY RECOMMENDATIONS Enact Necessary Legislation.............................................................................................. 13-1 Withdrawal Permits ........................................................................................................... 13-1 Streamlined Permitting...................................................................................................... 13-2 Withdrawals ........................................................................................................................ 13-4 SECTION 14 GOVERNANCE AND INTER-JURISDICTIONAL COLLABORATION Moving from Coordination to Collaboration ................................................................. 14-1 Obstacles to Collaboration ................................................................................................ 14-2 Opportunities for Regional Collaboration ...................................................................... 14-2 Tools to Advance Collaboration ...................................................................................... 14-3 Inter-jurisdictional Relationships ..................................................................................... 14-8 Conclusions ......................................................................................................................... 14-8 SECTION 15 FUNDING Local Funding ..................................................................................................................... 15-1 State Gap Financing ........................................................................................................... 15-2 Federal Funding.................................................................................................................. 15-4 District Operations ............................................................................................................. 15-4 Public-Private Partnerships............................................................................................... 15-5 SECTION 16 EDUCATION AND PUBLIC AWARENESS Purpose ................................................................................................................................ 16-1 Education and Public Awareness Plan Approach ......................................................... 16-1 Campaign Identity......................................................................................................... 16-1 Campaign Elements ...................................................................................................... 16-2 Element 1: Public Awareness Campaign .................................................................. 16-3 Element 2: Outreach and Education to Key Target Groups ................................... 16-7 Element 3 Primary and Secondary Education...................................................... 16-10 WATER SUPPLY AND WATER CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT PLAN DATE: SEPTEMBER 2003 P:\2317-002\TASK 13\FINAL REPORT SEP. 2003\FINAL WORD\WS TABLE OF CONTENT WATER.DOC TOC-4 Table of Contents SECTION 17 IMPLEMENTATION ACTIONS Roles ..................................................................................................................................... 17-1 Action Items ........................................................................................................................ 17-2 Implementation Costs ...................................................................................................... 17-10 Infrastructure-Related Costs ...................................................................................... 17-11 Programmatic Costs .................................................................................................... 17-12 Cost and Savings ......................................................................................................... 17-12 SECTION 18 ASSESSMENT OF PROGRESS Plan Reviews and Updates................................................................................................ 18-1 Ensuring Plan Relevancy.............................................................................................. 18-2 Setting Common Expectations..................................................................................... 18-2 Future Planning Work .................................................................................................. 18-2 Reviewing District and Other Plans ........................................................................... 18-3 Recommended Annual Reviews & Updates ............................................................. 18-3 Performance Measures....................................................................................................... 18-3 Type of Reports.............................................................................................................. 18-6 Responsibilities .............................................................................................................. 18-6 Conclusions ......................................................................................................................... 18-6 TABLES ES-1 ES-2 ES-3 ES-4 Summary of Existing Water Supply Sources..........................................................ES-7 Estimated Costs for District Water Supply and Water Conservation Plan ......ES-13 Local Water Planning Elements..............................................................................ES-16 Implementation Responsibilities ............................................................................ES-20 1-1 Screening Criteria for the Water Supply and Wastewater Management Plans ... 1-5 2-1 Added Water Supply or Reduced Demand for 2030 from Critical Strategies...... 2-2 2-2 Summary of Recommended Water Supply Sources and Water Treatment Facilities ........................................................................................................................... 2-6 2-3 Estimated Costs for District Water Supply and Conservation Plan for 2003 to 2030........................................................................................................................... 2-11 3-1 Existing Surface Water Supplies ................................................................................. 3-2 3-2 Existing Groundwater Supplies .................................................................................. 3-4 3-3 Planned Reservoirs ....................................................................................................... 3-6 3-4 Existing Surface Water Treatment Plants .................................................................. 3-7 4-1 Population and Employment Projections by County ................................................ 4-5 4-2 Population and Employment Projections by Basin .................................................... 4-5 4-3 County Water Withdrawal and Losses ........................................................................ 4-6 4-4 AWWARF Single Family Water End Uses ................................................................ 4-11 4-5 Existing Per Capita Use by County (AADD) ............................................................ 4-12 4-6 Baseline Water Use Projection by County (MGD, AADD) ..................................... 4-14 WATER SUPPLY AND WATER CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT PLAN DATE: SEPTEMBER 2003 P:\2317-002\TASK 13\FINAL REPORT SEP. 2003\FINAL WORD\WS TABLE OF CONTENT WATER.DOC TOC-5 Table of Contents 4-7 Baseline Water Use Projection by Basin (MGD, AADD) ......................................... 4-14 4-8 Final 2030 Water Use Projections by County with Aggressive Conservation...... 4-15 5-1 Summary of the Existing District Water Conservation Plans ................................... 5-1 5-2 Federal Water Use Requirements for Ultra-Low Flow Fixtures............................... 5-5 5-3 District-Wide Results of Conservation Measures Evaluation................................. 5-11 5-4 Description of the 25 Conservation Measures Evaluated in the DSS Model........ 5-12 5-5 District Wide Results of Option Packages Evaluation ............................................. 5-15 5-6 County Results of Option Packages Evaluation ....................................................... 5-16 5-7 Additional County Results of Option Packages Evaluation ................................... 5-16 5-8 Water Treatment Cost Savings from Conservation Program B.............................. 5-21 5-9 Final Water Use Projections ......................................................................................... 5-22 6-1 Ranking of Potential Local Surface Water Sources................................................... 6-15 6-2 Ranking of Potential Regional Sources ...................................................................... 6-15 6-3 Water Reuse Terminology ........................................................................................... 6-17 7-1 Results of Evaluation of the Four Alternatives ........................................................... 7-5 9-1 System Connections for Multi-County Projects.......................................................... 9-2 9-2 Water Treatment Plants Planned to be Expanded by 2030 ....................................... 9-3 9-3 Water Treatment Plants Planned to be Retired before 2030...................................... 9-4 10-1 Summary of Long-Term (2030) Interconnection Needs ......................................... 10-3 10-2 Recommended Formula for Calculating Water System Interconnection Reliability Target .......................................................................................................... 10-5 11-1 Local Water Planning Elements ................................................................................. 11-3 14-1 Multi-jurisdictional Projects ....................................................................................... 14-3 16-1 Communication Activities and Audiences............................................................... 16-7 16-2 Existing Water Resource Education Programs in the District ............................. 16-11 17-1 Implementation Tasks and Milestones for Water Conservation Program (Summary of Section 8 Action Items)........................................................................ 17-2 17-2 Implementation Tasks and Milestones for Water Supply Facilities (Summary of Section 9 Action Items)................................................................................................ 17-4 17-3 Implementation Tasks and Milestones for Water System Interconnections (Summary of Section 10 Action Items)...................................................................... 17-6 17-4 Implementation Tasks and Milestones for Local Water Management Planning (Summary of Section 11 Action Items)...................................................................... 17-6 17-5 Implementation Tasks and Milestones for Legislative and Regulatory Recommendations (Summary of Section 13 Action Items).................................... 17-7 17-6 Implementation Tasks and Milestones for Governance and Inter-jurisdictional Collaboration (Summary of Section 14 Action Items) ............................................ 17-8 17-7 Implementation Tasks and Milestones for Funding (Summary of WATER SUPPLY AND WATER CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT PLAN DATE: SEPTEMBER 2003 P:\2317-002\TASK 13\FINAL REPORT SEP. 2003\FINAL WORD\WS TABLE OF CONTENT WATER.DOC TOC-6 Table of Contents Section 15 Action Items).............................................................................................. 17-9 17-8 Implementation Tasks and Milestones for Education and Public Awareness (Summary of Section 16 Action Items).................................................................... 17-10 17-9 Estimated Water Infrastructure Costs ..................................................................... 17-11 17-10 Estimated Programmatic Costs to Implement WS Plan ....................................... 17-13 18-1 Summary of Plan Elements to be Reviewed and Updated Regularly by the District ............................................................................................ 18-4 18-2 Summary of Critical Performance Measures ........................................................... 18-5 FIGURES ES-1 Planning Process ...........................................................................................................ES-4 ES-2 District Policy Goals .....................................................................................................ES-5 ES-3 Existing Interbasin Transfers ......................................................................................ES-8 ES-4 Projected Water Supply and Demand .......................................................................ES-9 ES-5 Planning Procedure ....................................................................................................ES-11 ES-6 District Plan for Water Treatment Facilities in 2030 ..............................................ES-14 ES-7 Planned Interbasin Transfers for 2030 .....................................................................ES-15 1-1 District Study Area.......................................................................................................... 1-2 1-2 District Policy Goals........................................................................................................ 1-4 1-3 Integration of the Three District Long-term Plans ..................................................... 1-7 2-1 Projection of Water Supply and Demand .................................................................... 2-2 2-2 Use of Water Supply Sources in 2030 ........................................................................... 2-3 2-3 Demand Centers.............................................................................................................. 2-5 3-1 Summary of Existing Interbasin Transfers .................................................................. 3-5 3-2 Existing (through 2005) Water Treatment Plants ..................................................... 3-10 3-3 Existing County Interconnection Locations .............................................................. 3-11 4-1 Baseline Water Demand Projections and Water Conservation (AADD) ................ 4-2 4-2 Population Projection Methodology............................................................................. 4-4 4-3 Water Demand Calculation ........................................................................................... 4-6 4-4 2001 Water Withdrawal by County (AADD) .............................................................. 4-7 4-5 2001 District Water Withdrawal and Water Use by Type (AADD) ......................... 4-7 4-6 District Water Use Profile (AADD) .............................................................................. 4-8 4-7 2001 District Residential Water Use (AADD) ............................................................. 4-8 4-8 Historical Residential Single Family Water Use for One County ............................ 4-9 4-9 Water Use Model Methodology.................................................................................. 4-10 4-10 Water Use Projection With and Without Natural Conservation (AADD)............ 4-13 5-1 Evaluation Process of Water Conservation Measures ............................................... 5-7 5-2 Benefit-Cost Analysis Methodology............................................................................. 5-8 5-3 Structure of the DSS Model............................................................................................ 5-9 5-4 Present Value of Utility Costs Versus Water Saved ................................................. 5-15 WATER SUPPLY AND WATER CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT PLAN DATE: SEPTEMBER 2003 P:\2317-002\TASK 13\FINAL REPORT SEP. 2003\FINAL WORD\WS TABLE OF CONTENT WATER.DOC TOC-7 Table of Contents 5-5 Final Water Demand Projections ................................................................................ 5-22 6-1 Projected Water Supply and Demand.......................................................................... 6-2 6-2 Potential Surface Water Sources Chattahoochee and Etowah Basins................. 6-12 6-3 Potential Surface Water Sources Flint, Ocmulgee, and Oconee Basins .............. 6-13 7-1 Policy Goals and Evaluation Criteria ........................................................................... 7-2 8-1 Priority Water Conservation Measures........................................................................ 8-5 10-1 2030 Interconnection Needs......................................................................................... 10-4 10-2 Essential Water Use....................................................................................................... 10-5 14-1 Levels Leading to Collaboration ................................................................................ 14-1 14-2 Future Structure and Roles ......................................................................................... 14-8 APPENDICES Appendix A Appendix B Appendix C Index County Level Summaries - Water Supply Implementation Plan Partner Organizations- CWC Target Partnerships/Sponsorships Master List WATER SUPPLY AND WATER CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT PLAN DATE: SEPTEMBER 2003 P:\2317-002\TASK 13\FINAL REPORT SEP. 2003\FINAL WORD\WS TABLE OF CONTENT WATER.DOC TOC-8 Executive Summary This is the first edition of the Metropolitan North Georgia Water Planning District's (District) Water Supply and Water Conservation Management Plan (WS Plan). It presents a 30-year plan for the newly established District to address water service needs and to balance the uses of water resources. By law, the WS Plan will be reviewed annually by the District, and will be updated at least once every 5 years. Water supply needs within the District are expected to nearly double during this planning horizon. To address this level of need, the WS Plan anticipates a future of intensive management of water demands and growing reliance upon recycled water. A program of aggressive water conservation is paramount to the WS Plan, as well as continued development of small reservoirs and sharing of supplies. Finally, the WS Plan includes new policies and programs to foster coordinated water supply and conservation decisions among the local governments in the District. The WS Plan addresses statewide concern regarding Metropolitan North Georgia's management of its water resources. The WS Plan is the first comprehensive regional approach to be developed that addresses water management in Metropolitan North Georgia. The overall goal of the WS Plan is to meet projected water demands without compromising environmental and downstream needs, thereby helping the Environmental Protection Division (EPD) make permitting decisions. This WS Plan Outlines a balanced, long-term water management strategy for meeting future needs, while protecting water quality through 2030, and preserving water resources in all five major river basins. The District is comprised of 16 counties in metropolitan North Georgia. These counties are located primarily within the boundaries of five major river basins: the Chattahoochee, Etowah (a sub-basin of the Coosa), Flint, Oconee, and Ocmulgee. Small portions of the District are also in the Tallapoosa River Basin and smaller basins of the Coosa River Basin. The District lies in the upstream headwaters of the basins and, as such, is comprised of relatively small streams and rivers. WATER SUPPLY AND WATER CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT PLAN DATE: SEPTEMBER 2003 P:\2317-002\TASK 13\FINAL REPORT SEP. 2003\FINAL WORD\WS EXEC SUMMARY.DOC ES-1 Executive Summary Plan Highlights Water resource issues in the District are driven by the geography of the region, which is dominated by headwater streams. Among many other uses, streams serve as the water supply source for most of the District. The Georgia General Assembly recognized the need to develop a regional plan to address issues such as growing demand, water quality and quantity, interbasin transfers, reliability and performance, funding, and public education. This foresight culminated in the WS Plan effort. The Water Supply and Water Conservation Management Plan shares water throughout the District and preserves water supply beyond 2030 in all river basins. The WS Plan continues the local ownership and operation of water facilities with increased inter-jurisdictional collaboration, in order to gain efficiencies and avoid duplication. The District's role is to maintain and update the WS Plan and assist with inter-jurisdictional collaboration. Various state agencies continue in their roles of setting standards, regulating, permitting, and funding. The WS Plan has the following benefits: Water supplies are shared and sources are (just) adequate through 2030; Water conservation program encourages good stewardship; Reclaimed water is an integral element; Costs are lower than other alternatives considered; Consumptive water uses are discouraged; Local plans can be refined, while maintaining consistency with the WS Plan; Collective voice and unified plan can support legislative and funding requests to state and federal agencies; Permitting processes are simplified; Water system interconnections provide reliability and emergency back-up; and Quality of life is enhanced for District residents. The WS Plan includes the following elements: Shared water resources; Aggressive water conservation program; Integration of indirect potable reuse by returning reclaimed water to local streams and water supply reservoirs; Returning flow to the Chattahoochee Basin; Local planning efforts to optimize and refine existing local plans for consistency with the District Plan; Preparation of tools to aid in interjurisdictional collaboration, including model agreements, fair share funding formulas, dispute resolution, and rewards; The District has prepared 3 integrated water management plans WATER SUPPLY AND WATER CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT PLAN DATE: SEPTEMBER 2003 P:\2317-002\TASK 13\FINAL REPORT SEP. 2003\FINAL WORD\WS EXEC SUMMARY.DOC ES-2 Executive Summary Additional gap funding through Georgia Environmental Facilities Authority (GEFA) or federal funding; and Education and public awareness. Introduction In 2001, the Georgia General Assembly recognized the value of the metropolitan North Georgia area watersheds for water supply, recreation, habitat for fish and wildlife, economic prosperity, and quality of life, by enacting Senate Bill 130. They determined that adequate supplies of clean water for drinking and other purposes constituted the lifeblood of the metropolitan North Georgia area and were, therefore, essential to the health, welfare, and economic progress of the area and the State. They established the Metropolitan North Georgia Water Planning District and charged it with addressing comprehensive water resource management planning in the 16county area of metropolitan north Georgia. Part of the District's charge was to create four distinct but integrated plans: short-term wastewater management recommendations, and long-term stormwater/watershed, wastewater, and water supply management plans. The planning horizon for the long-term plans was set at 2030. The WS Plan that follows outlines the long-term water management strategy through 2030. It provides a summary of the planning process, existing conditions and issues, evaluated alternatives, recommended solution, implementation actions, and measures to assess progress. Planning Process This WS Plan was prepared using a well-established planning process that involved a broad group of stakeholders throughout the process. It was based on policy goals established at the project outset and was integrated with other concurrent planning efforts. As required by Senate Bill 130, the EPD established Planning Standards that the WS Plan must meet. An open, stepby-step decision process was used to develop the WS Plan. This process enabled the District to maximize use of existing information, and to complete the WS Plan within the compressed schedule mandated by law. The primary steps in the planning process are illustrated in Figure ES-1. WATER SUPPLY AND WATER CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT PLAN DATE: SEPTEMBER 2003 P:\2317-002\TASK 13\FINAL REPORT SEP. 2003\FINAL WORD\WS EXEC SUMMARY.DOC ES-3 FIGURE ES-1 Planning Process Executive Summary Technical Coordinating Committee and Basin Advisory Councils Participation A cornerstone of the decision process was a series of facilitated meetings with the Technical Coordinating Committee (TCC) and six Basin Advisory Councils (BACs). The TCC was comprised of local county and city utility staff, and served as a technical advisory group to provide information, guidance, and feedback during WS Plan preparation. Each BAC was comprised of a cross-section of stakeholders that represented one of the river basins: Chattahoochee, Etowah, Lake Lanier, Oconee, Ocmulgee, and Flint. These regional resources provided critical technical information and direction to the District and the consultant team. The BACs were consulted on each of the major deliverables in the planning process. Feedback and suggestions from both groups were used to refine the recommendations through each successive step, via regular meetings and professional facilitation. WATER SUPPLY AND WATER CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT PLAN DATE: SEPTEMBER 2003 P:\2317-002\TASK 13\FINAL REPORT SEP. 2003\FINAL WORD\WS EXEC SUMMARY.DOC ES-4 Executive Summary Key Planning Assumptions Key planning assumptions that were used as a basis for the evaluation and recommendations included: Planning horizon through 2030 The water/wastewater/watershed plans were integrated across the District and across all planning topics to optimize the efficient use and management of the limited and reusable water resources; There would be growth in the District over the planning period. There would be water resource limitations on long-term development, but the plans would support economic development within these limitations; EPD guidance on limiting conditions in the ACF and ACT basins; reallocation lakes Lanier and Allatoona; Interbasin water transfers from outside the District would neither be studied nor included in any District plan; and Plan solutions will be mindful of impacts of the plan in areas outside the District. Policy Goals The District's policy goals served as guideposts for all of the District's planning efforts. Using the same set of goals across all plans helped ensure consistency of purpose. The WS Plan was developed with the policy goals, shown on Figure ES-2, in mind. FIGURE ES-2 District Policy Goals Integration of Planning Efforts Each jurisdiction in the 16-county District faces a multitude of requirements linked to water resource management. The resulting activities form a complex network, including watershed management, infrastructure improvements, water conservation, land use planning, and facility permitting. Moreover, each jurisdiction's independent activities affect the water resources that are shared throughout the District. WATER SUPPLY AND WATER CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT PLAN DATE: SEPTEMBER 2003 P:\2317-002\TASK 13\FINAL REPORT SEP. 2003\FINAL WORD\WS EXEC SUMMARY.DOC ES-5 Executive Summary District water resources can meet long-term needs if carefully managed Responsible water resource management calls for consistency in the management of the jurisdictions' vital water resources. By adopting an integrated approach to planning, the District serves as an umbrella under which many existing water resource management requirements can be addressed. This approach facilitates the jurisdictions' ability to consider all requirements related to water resource management in a comprehensive manner, helping to avoid duplication of effort, and enhancing the effectiveness of water quality improvement measures. In addition, integrated, region-wide planning can simplify reporting requirements faced by jurisdictions in the District planning area. The main purpose of the District is to promote intergovernmental coordination for all water issues, to facilitate inter-jurisdictional water related projects, and to enhance access to funding for water related projects among local governments in the District area. Existing Water Supply and Treatment Facilities Existing water management throughout the District can be characterized by individual jurisdictions providing their own services, interconnected with other jurisdictions on an asneeded basis. Water management includes supply, treatment, distribution, interconnections, and the interaction of these infrastructure systems with the natural systems. Existing Water Supplies The District relies primarily on surface water from rivers and storage reservoirs as its main source of water supply. In fact, surface water provides over 99 percent of the water supply in the District. The most significant water supply source for the region is the Chattahoochee River system, which includes Lake Lanier. Additional major river systems located within and adjacent to the District include the Etowah (Lake Allatoona), Flint, Ocmulgee, and Oconee River Basins. Groundwater sources make up less than one percent of the total water supply in the District. Groundwater is not a significant source of water supply for the District, due to highly variable groundwater quality and the unavailability of sufficiently high yielding wells. Existing water supply sources by basin are summarized in Table ES-1. WATER SUPPLY AND WATER CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT PLAN DATE: SEPTEMBER 2003 P:\2317-002\TASK 13\FINAL REPORT SEP. 2003\FINAL WORD\WS EXEC SUMMARY.DOC ES-6 Executive Summary Table ES-1 Summary of Existing Water Supply Sources Basin Chattahoochee Etowah Flint Ocmulgee Oconee District Total Estimated Available Supply Million Gallons Per Day Average Annual Daily Basis 641 133 61 98 0 933 In addition to existing sources, there are five local reservoirs planned for the District in the near future that are currently in various stages of the permitting process. These planned reservoirs may provide an additional 114 million gallons per day (MGD) of water supply in the District. The District will continue to rely on existing water supplies through the planning period. Existing Water Treatment Facilities Water supply and treatment needs across the District are met by water utilities. The District has 34 existing surface water treatment plants. Expressed as a peak daily demand (PDD), the plant capacities range from less than 1 MGD up to 150 MGD, providing a combined treatment capacity of 997 MGD. Four additional water treatment plants are planned by year 2005, which will add 168 MGD of capacity, for a total of 1,165 MGD. As previously stated, groundwater accounts for less than one percent of the water supply within the District. Existing Water Supply Interconnections Interconnections with other water systems provide a valuable means of increasing water system reliability. If water systems are interconnected, finished water supply can readily be available in the event of a major water component failure or drought. These connections can function on an emergency-only basis, as a peaking supply, or they can provide major or sole sources of water supply for some water systems. All of the counties within the District maintain connections with at least one other county for either routine or emergency water sale. Existing Interbasin Transfers For the past 100 years, water supply and wastewater interbasin transfers have occurred in the metropolitan North Georgia area. Currently, transfers into and out of every basin occur, as shown on Figure ES-3. The Chattahoochee and Etowah Basins are net exporters of water, and the Flint, Ocmulgee, and Oconee Basins are net importers of water. Interbasin transfers occur when water is moved to an adjacent basin for use or when wastewater is moved to an adjacent basin for treatment and/or discharge. For example, DeKalb County withdraws water from the Chattahoochee River and serves the entire county, including the portion of the county located in the Ocmulgee basin, resulting in an interbasin transfer of WATER SUPPLY AND WATER CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT PLAN DATE: SEPTEMBER 2003 P:\2317-002\TASK 13\FINAL REPORT SEP. 2003\FINAL WORD\WS EXEC SUMMARY.DOC ES-7 Executive Summary water. Inter-jurisdictional connections exist to sell water to neighboring jurisdictions, either on an ongoing basis or for emergencies. Wastewater is most often discharged in the basin where it is generated via gravity flow. This may result in a net transfer of water. In some communities, wastewater is pumped to another basin for treatment and/or discharge, which can result in an offset that reduces the net amount transferred. The District does not import water from outside its boundaries. There are a few interjurisdictional agreements between District members and neighboring jurisdictions outside the District to share water resources, but these are relatively minor and do not involve interbasin transfers. FIGURE ES-3 Existing Interbasin Transfers Water Demand Projections Population within the District is projected to increase from 4 million in 2000, to nearly 8 million by 2030. The timing and physical location of water resources needs will mirror population and employment growth. This growth is expected to be slightly more rapid in the first half of the planning period and slower as the area matures. Demands will have different dimensions in the rural, suburban, and urban areas. The perimeter counties of Bartow, Forsyth, and Paulding face the largest rates of growth, but population in these counties in 2030 will still be significantly less than today's well-developed counties of Cobb, DeKalb, Fulton, and Gwinnett. WATER SUPPLY AND WATER CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT PLAN DATE: SEPTEMBER 2003 P:\2317-002\TASK 13\FINAL REPORT SEP. 2003\FINAL WORD\WS EXEC SUMMARY.DOC ES-8 Depending upon the extent of water conservation, the projection of water flows varies, as shown in Figure ES4. Under the recommended conservation program, the projected water demand is estimated to be 1,081 MGD on an average annual daily demand basis. Executive Summary FIGURE ES-4 Projected Water Supply and Demand Water Conservation Analysis From the inception of the District, water conservation has been identified as a key component of the WS Plan. The District's goals and the EPD Planning Standards require that a Water Conservation Program be established to improve the efficiency of water use in the future. A comprehensive evaluation was performed on 25 conservation measures that passed an initial screening process of more than 100 potential conservation measures. Based upon the evaluation, a recommended conservation program containing the 11 most promising measures was developed. The TCC and BACs were consulted, and gave advice and recommendations throughout the development of the conservation program. If fully implemented, and if the measures meet projections, this program has the potential for water demand reductions of 11 percent, and an 8 percent reduction in generated wastewater by the year 2030. The most effective water conservation measures for the water utilities in the District are expected to be those that save on indoor water use and reduce water system losses. Indoor water conservation programs will also reduce wastewater flows, an additional benefit. A benefit-cost analysis was completed for the recommended conservation program, on a District-wide basis. Due to reduced water treatment plant expansion and upgrade costs, as well as reduced operation and maintenance costs, the benefit-to-cost ratio (water system cost savings divided by conservation program costs) is 2.5. This means that for every dollar invested in implementing the conservation program, a savings of $2.50 in water supply and treatment costs is realized. This demonstrates that the conservation program will be highly cost-effective. WATER SUPPLY AND WATER CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT PLAN DATE: SEPTEMBER 2003 P:\2317-002\TASK 13\FINAL REPORT SEP. 2003\FINAL WORD\WS EXEC SUMMARY.DOC ES-9 Executive Summary Water Supply Issues The currently planned water withdrawals of local utilities may collectively exceed the water supply in some basins by 2030. In addition, there is a need to reduce consumptive losses and return more flows to streams. There is also increasing pressure to protect water supply watersheds and concern about emerging contaminants, such as endocrine disruptors and pharmaceutical byproducts. Interconnections between neighboring water systems, and reliability in case of failure or drought, are increasingly important. The recent drought, from 1998 through 2002, has brought additional attention to water resources throughout the State. There is a concern that the metropolitan area will transfer water from other parts of the State or the Southeast, although that is not currently done. Senate Bill 130 specifically prohibited the District from studying or recommending any such interbasin transfers from outside the District. Based on population growth projections, the District water demand will almost double by 2030. Management of water resources relies on the return of highly treated reclaimed water to the streams to support instream flows and water supply. At the same time, the costs for potable water supply will increase due to the need for higher levels of treatment, expanded water service areas within the District, higher levels of reliability and performance, replacement of older facilities with more technologically advanced plants, expanded water conservation programs, and increased public education efforts. Therefore, the WS Plan addresses growth and public service needs, cost effective replacement and upgrades, return of more water to sources, and an increased level of inter-jurisdictional collaboration, to ensure that local and regional needs are balanced. While these issues are not new and members of the District are currently addressing these issues, the entire region needs to embrace them for the solutions to be effective. These issues were considered in developing the infrastructure elements of the WS Plan and then further defined as policies necessary for the successful implementation of the WS Plan. Water Supply Source Evaluation The potential for additional water supply options, including surface water, groundwater, and water reuse were identified and evaluated. Findings from this analysis included the following: The District is expected to continue to rely heavily on surface water supply sources to meet its future water demand. The reallocations of water storage in Lake Lanier and Lake Allatoona to water supply will be essential to guarantee water supply for the District for the next 30 years and beyond. WATER SUPPLY AND WATER CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT PLAN DATE: SEPTEMBER 2003 P:\2317-002\TASK 13\FINAL REPORT SEP. 2003\FINAL WORD\WS EXEC SUMMARY.DOC ES-10 Executive Summary Reallocation of Lake Lanier and Lake Allatoona far outranks any other supply source in terms of cost, environmental and social impacts, feasibility, and public and intergovernmental acceptance. Groundwater is not likely to provide significant quantities of water supply for the District in the future; however, it may be developed in parts of the District to supplement surface water sources, particularly during peak demand periods. Indirect potable reuse, or reclaimed water that is returned to water supply sources such as Lake Lanier and Lake Allatoona, provides the most flexibility in meeting future potable demands. Successful implementation of water conservation and water reuse can help the District increase and extend the life of its water supplies. However, there are practical limits to the amount of water gained from these practices. Alternatives Development and Evaluation A range of potential management alternatives was identified to address the District's policy goals and planning criteria. These were narrowed from 8 themes to 3 solutions, and then refined into the recommended solution, as shown in Figure ES-5. Evaluation criteria were used FIGURE ES-5 Planning Procedure throughout the WS Plan development process to evaluate how well each alternative addressed the criterion. The final solutions included: Current Plans: Based on the jurisdictions' existing plans; Consolidated Expansion: Focused on fewer, more regionalized plants; Basin Water Resources: Emphasized taking water supply from the basin where the service is provided and returning wastewater to the same basin; and Recommended Solution: Assembled from desirable features of other solutions. WATER SUPPLY AND WATER CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT PLAN DATE: SEPTEMBER 2003 P:\2317-002\TASK 13\FINAL REPORT SEP. 2003\FINAL WORD\WS EXEC SUMMARY.DOC ES-11 Executive Summary Water Conservation Program Water conservation is not only essential to meeting projected District water demands, it is also a cost-effective way to extend the life of existing water sources. By the year 2030, the planned level of water conservation has the potential to reduce demands by approximately 136 MGD, or 11%. This can be achieved through more efficient indoor and outdoor water use, and reduction of water losses by utilities through system leakage. Implementing the recommended WS Plan for water conservation requires new policies, new laws, and new responsibilities for utilities and consumers. Several actions must be initiated immediately and closely monitored for their effectiveness. If the District is not completely successful with attaining the planned level of conservation in the early years, additional conservation actions may be needed, or additional water supplies will need to be secured. The goal of the water conservation program is to reduce water use without being punitive. With this in mind, other conservation actions not included in this WS Plan, but with equivalent water savings, may be implemented by District water providers, as long as the results are consistent with District objectives. The specific actions included in the water conservation program were: Establishing conservation pricing (all District utilities by January 2004); Enacting legislation to require plumbing retrofits on home resales; Enacting legislation to require low-flush urinals for new industrial, commercial, and institutional buildings; Enacting legislation to require rain sensor shut-off switches on new irrigation systems; Requiring sub-unit meters in new multi-family buildings; Assessing and reduce water system leakage; Conducting residential water audits; Distributing low-flow retrofit kits to residential users; Conducting commercial water audits; Implementing education and public awareness plan; and Establishing review and oversight of water conservation implementation and performance. Water Supply Facilities The infrastructure elements of the WS Plan facilitate water sharing throughout the District and the replenishing of water supplies through wastewater returns. As shown in Figure ES-6, the significant features of the recommended water supply and water conservation management solution for 2030 are: WATER SUPPLY AND WATER CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT PLAN DATE: SEPTEMBER 2003 P:\2317-002\TASK 13\FINAL REPORT SEP. 2003\FINAL WORD\WS EXEC SUMMARY.DOC ES-12 Executive Summary Most water treatment plants remain in service: o Construct 4 new water treatment plants by 2005 o Construct 1 new water treatment plant after 2005 o Expand 21 existing water treatment plants o Retire 4 existing water treatment plants Implement guidance from EPD on the limiting factors for the ACF and ACT basins. Reallocation of Lakes Lanier and Allatoona. Complete permitting process and construction of reservoir sources currently in the permitting process. Provide water system interconnections for increased reliability and security as well as to support projected water demand growth. Return reclaimed water to Lake Lanier and the Chattahoochee River. The WS Plan includes interbasin transfers within the District to better share the water resources throughout the District, as shown in Figure ES-7. The WS Plan includes using water from the Etowah Basin to serve portions of the northern Chattahoochee Basin. Within the WS Plan, water continues to be transferred from the Chattahoochee basin into the Ocmulgee Basin, but more reclaimed water is returned to the Chattahoochee through Gwinnett County returns to Lake Lanier and DeKalb County returns to the Chattahoochee River. More of the Ocmulgee and Oconee water demand is supplied from within those respective basins, thereby reducing future interbasin transfers. Costs associated with implementing the WS Plan are summarized in Table ES-2. The recommended water conservation program should save approximately $500 million over the 30-year planning period by reducing the need to expand water supply systems. Non-capital (Programmatic and Policy) costs were developed using initial costs to establish programs, plus annual operating costs. The WS Plan includes an increase in the level of service, degree of reliability, and protection of streams and lakes. Accordingly, user costs will also increase over the 30-year planning period. Table ES-2 Estimated Costs for District Water Supply and Water Conservation Plan Projected Costs by Time Period2 Item 2001 to 2010 2011 to 2020 2021 to 2030 Total for 30 ($ billion) ($ billion) ($billion) Years ($ billion) Infrastructure Reservoirs <$ 1 0 0 <$ 1 Treatment Facilities <$ 1 <$ 1 <$ 1 $ 2 Distribution System $ 2 $ 3 $ 3 $ 8 Treatment O&M $ 1 $ 1 $ 2 $ 4 Distribution System O&M Programmatic and Policy Measures1 $ 3 <$ 1 $ 4 <$ 1 $ 5 <$ 1 $ 12 <$ 1 Total $ 8 $ 9 $ 10 $ 27 1 Estimated set-up costs and annual costs are presented in Table 17-10. Total estimated set-up costs are $14.1 million. Total estimated annual costs are $7.2 million/year. 2 All costs are estimated future amounts in 2003 dollars. WATER SUPPLY AND WATER CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT PLAN DATE: SEPTEMBER 2003 P:\2317-002\TASK 13\FINAL REPORT SEP. 2003\FINAL WORD\WS EXEC SUMMARY.DOC ES-13 Legend = County Boundaries = Lakes = Streams WTP's: Existing without Expansion Existing with Expansion River Basins = Chattahoochee River Basin = Coosa River Basin = Tallapoosa River Basin = Flint River Basin = Ocmulgee River Basin = Oconee River Basin New Coosawattee Subbasin Oostanaula Subbasin COOSA RIVER BASIN CHATTAHOOCHEE RIVER BASIN Hall Adairsville Lewis Spring WTP Gainesville Riverside WTP Cherokee Etowah River WTP Bartow EtowahCherokee Cumming WTP Subbasin Canton WTP Forsyth Gainesville WTP Lakeside WTP LAKE SIDNEY LANIER Hall Cedar Creek WTP LAKE Cartersville Clarence B. Walker WTP ALLATOONA Forsyth Gwinnett Shoal Creek WTP Gwinnett Lake Lanier WTP Buford WTP Paulding CCMWA Hugh A. Wyckoff WTP CCMWA James E. Quarles WTP Cobb Atlanta-Fulton County WTP DeKalb Gwinnett Scott Candler WTP OCONEE RIVER BASIN TALLAPOOSA RIVER BASIN Douglas DDCWSA Bear Creek WTP Fulton Chattahoochee WTP Atlanta Hemphill WTP DeKalb East Point WTP Rockdale Big Haynes Creek WTP Rockdale Clayton Monroe WTP Walton Walton New Hard Labor Creek WTP Walton Lake Varner WTP Coweta BT Brown WTP Clayton W.J. Hooper WTP Clayton Freeman Fayetteville WTP Road WTP McDonough WTP Newnan Norred WTP Fayette Fayette Crosstown WTP Clayton J.W. Smith WTP Henry Henry Tussahaw WTP Coweta South Fayette WTP Henry Towaliga WTP FLINT RIVER BASIN OCMULGEE RIVER BASIN Metro trict orgia Wat politan North Ge er Planning Dis 2317_001_Maps_ES-6W/2-3_p2.fh9 Metropolitan North Georgia Water Planning District District Plan for Water Treatment Facilities in 2030 Date: September 2003 Scale: As Shown Job No.: 2317.001 Figure ES-6 FIGURE ES-7 Planned Interbasin Transfers for 2030 Executive Summary Water Systems Interconnection Recommendations Advancement of inter-jurisdictional water system connections, as required by the Planning Standards, will significantly improve water system reliability and efficiency within the District. An interconnection reliability target was established for the District in the WS Plan. The recommended target was that each water utility would have standby capacity of either system interconnections or redundant treatment capacity to provide at least 35% of its AADD with its largest treatment plant offline. The 35% of AADD figure was based on the estimated water required to meet essential water needs, including eating, drinking, toilet flushing, fire fighting, hospital use, and a portion of the system's unaccounted-for-water. The majority of water systems within the District will need additional connections with adjacent systems to achieve the District-wide interconnection reliability target by 2030. Water systems with only one water treatment plant will have a higher need to connect with other systems for improved reliability. Local jurisdictions should use the recommended District-wide interconnection reliability target to develop or update their emergency water sharing plans. The needs for additional interconnection, whether for reliability and/or wholesale needs, should be incorporated in their long-term water distribution system improvement plans. The critical implementation actions for advancing water system interconnections between jurisdictions include: Set interconnection reliability targets; Establish sample water sharing agreements; and Develop or update local emergency water plans. WATER SUPPLY AND WATER CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT PLAN DATE: SEPTEMBER 2003 P:\2317-002\TASK 13\FINAL REPORT SEP. 2003\FINAL WORD\WS EXEC SUMMARY.DOC ES-15 Executive Summary Local Planning Recommendations While the District prepared the WS Plan, it will be implemented by the local jurisdictions that own and operate the water systems. The local jurisdictions need to integrate the WS Plan into their own master plans. The specifics of the WS Plan will be developed and/or refined at the local level. Preparation of the local master plans is both an opportunity to demonstrate conformance with the WS Plan and/or provide improvements and innovations to the WS Plan, based on a more in-depth analysis of local circumstances and factors. Local jurisdictions should develop local plans that, at a minimum, conform to the core principles of the WS Plan. The local plans will target water services that are developed cost effectively, with a long term, regional perspective, while providing quality customer service. To achieve these goals, local water management plans need to include: County-wide and basin-wide perspectives; 30-year planning horizon with 5 year updates; Inter-jurisdictional dialogue, cooperation, and resource sharing; Water service areas, distribution systems, and interconnections; Water treatment; Water conservation; Water reuse; Net return and consumptive use calculations; and Education and public awareness activities. Table ES-3 summarizes the essential elements that a local water plan should include in the future. In addition to traditional components, regional elements should be incorporated based on the recommendations in the WS Plan. In addition, it is expected that future water management plans will be more fully integrated with land use and transportation planning. Table ES-3 Local Water Planning Elements Traditional Demand Supply Service Area Treatment Transmission and Distribution Capital Improvement Plans Regional System Interconnections Water Conservation Reuse Drought Planning Emergency Planning Coordination with Wastewater and Watershed Plans Education and Public Awareness Activities WATER SUPPLY AND WATER CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT PLAN DATE: SEPTEMBER 2003 P:\2317-002\TASK 13\FINAL REPORT SEP. 2003\FINAL WORD\WS EXEC SUMMARY.DOC ES-16 Executive Summary Flexibility within the Plan The purposes of the local plans described above are to address local needs and site-specific issues, refine and improve the WS Plan, and to demonstrate consistency with the WS Plan. Local plan development will give jurisdictions an opportunity to negotiate modifications to the WS Plan with other District members. The WS Plan includes guidance regarding the extent to which local jurisdictions can change the WS Plan, while remaining consistent with its essential elements. In addition to local plan development, the updating of the WS Plan every 5 years will provide local jurisdictions with an opportunity to modify the WS Plan. These updates will provide flexibility based upon continuing experience and events that may impact the WS Plan. It is expected that the WS Plan will be updated based upon revised projections, changing land use, new legislation and regulations, court rulings, additional funding options, and other external factors. Legislative and Regulatory Recommendations A major accomplishment of the WS Plan is that it will allow the EPD to issue permits more quickly. Because the WS Plan establishes the regional framework for water supply and treatment, each local plan will not need to address regional issues, which will speed review by the EPD. Further, the local jurisdictions will have an understandable plan to follow in securing permits. Senate Bill 130 grants the EPD broad powers for issuing permits in accordance with the WS Plan. These powers are the most forceful way that the WS Plan will be implemented. Regulatory permitting of water supply and water treatment is crucial to the implementation of the WS Plan. One of the most useful purposes of the WS Plan is that it will guide the EPD's issuance of permits. The WS Plan offers new insights into making natural resource allocations and issuing permits, because it is both regional and long-range, two perspectives not included in the plans previously developed by individual local governments. Through EPD's use of the WS Plan, review and issuance of permits can be expedited. The following specific actions have been identified to expedite implementation of the WS Plan: Conservation legislation. New and/or revised state legislation is required to fully implement the water conservation program. These requirements are summarized in Section 8: Water Conservation Program. Develop a regional Section 404 permit for the District. The District may negotiate a Regional Permit with the Savannah District of the Army Corps of Engineers that would cover a wide variety of typical projects. This will also allow the District to negotiate a uniform wetland mitigation strategy. WATER SUPPLY AND WATER CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT PLAN DATE: SEPTEMBER 2003 P:\2317-002\TASK 13\FINAL REPORT SEP. 2003\FINAL WORD\WS EXEC SUMMARY.DOC ES-17 Executive Summary Simplify EPD permitting for District projects. EPD will modify its permit cycle, permit application requirements, standard permit conditions, guidelines, and reporting requirements to be consistent with the WS Plan and to streamline the permitting process for projects, consistent with the WS Plan. Use the WS Plan to allocate water withdrawal. EPD will use the WS Plan to issue water withdrawal permits. Permits will be issued for demonstrated need, not necessarily the full 2030 capacity shown in the WS Plan. Governance and Inter-jurisdictional Collaboration Senate Bill 130 requires that the WS Plan include: "measures to maximize efficiency through multijurisdictional approaches to avoid duplication of efforts and unnecessary costs." The extensive number of existing inter- and intra-jurisdictional agreements among local governments and utilities demonstrates the appreciation and benefits of cooperative service delivery. District-wide relationships, understanding of common and unique problems, and trust are evolving through the forum of the Atlanta Regional Commission and other regional development centers, the requirements of joint service delivery strategies in House Bill 489 (the Service Delivery Strategy Act), and this current District planning effort. The WS Plan will build and expand on this communication and cooperation to optimize limited water treatment infrastructure and financial and technical resources. The following specific actions have been identified to facilitate implementation of the WS Plan: Continue to use existing tools; Develop and share model inter-jurisdictional agreements; Establish a fair share funding formula framework; Establish level of service expectations and commitments; Establish a formal system of dispute resolution; Explore the most appropriate role for the State; and Publicize and reward successful partnerships. Funding Successful implementation of the WS Plan hinges on the ability to fund its programmatic measures, capital improvements, and monitoring activities. The majority of projects within the WS Plan will be financed by loans and repaid by users. A key component is assurance of adequate monies to lend, at the lowest interest rates, backed by the strength of the State, through GEFA. A range of funding options for District needs was examined, including current and innovative funding mechanisms. Currently, water projects in the District are funded locally. This is expected to continue into the future. Long-term, the most critical funding needs for implementing the WS Plan are for capital facility improvements and maintenance, local planning, public education, and ongoing District operations. Of these needs, the funding of WATER SUPPLY AND WATER CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT PLAN DATE: SEPTEMBER 2003 P:\2317-002\TASK 13\FINAL REPORT SEP. 2003\FINAL WORD\WS EXEC SUMMARY.DOC ES-18 Executive Summary facility improvements is the most challenging. This is due to the difficulty of arranging for timely financing of needed improvements, especially those that serve two or more communities. Spread over the next 30 years, investment in water supply, treatment and distribution in the District is expected to reach $9.6 billion. An additional $16.6 billion will be expended on operation and maintenance of these systems. Funding the recommended programmatic measures for water management will require $231 million. Specific funding recommendations necessary to implement the WS Plan include: Fund capital improvements primarily by local participants (note: projects required pursuant to a federal or state court order will take precedence over the recommendations in this Plan); Increase financing opportunities through GEFA loans; Increase federal funding through a unified funding appeal; Identify funding formula for District operations; and Evaluate opportunities for public-private partnerships. Education and Public Awareness Education and public awareness are essential to water supply and water conservation management, as public behaviors can greatly affect the use of water and the ability to implement projects on schedule and within budget. Public understanding and support are needed to conserve water, treat water at higher levels and costs, and incorporate reuse. The legislation that created the District mandated that education and public awareness measures be designed to reach 75 to 90% of the population of the District by 2006. These measures are to be undertaken by the District, other state agencies, local governments, public education institutions, and other public or semi-public entities. Watershed management, water supply planning, and wastewater management share the same goal clean water. The joint recommendation of all three concurrent long-term plans is to build on the existing Clean Water Campaign, a cooperative, multi-agency public education initiative spearheaded by 20 local governments and managed by the Atlanta Regional Commission. It seeks to build awareness of water quality problems and solutions in the Atlanta region. Its mission is to educate the public about the common sources of water pollution due to stormwater runoff and the negative effects on our water supply, recreational opportunities, aquatic ecosystems, and quality of life. The scope should be expanded to encompass all water resource management components. Changes in basic behavior and practices are necessary to achieve long-term improvements in water use and water quality. However, such changes will not occur until residents become aware of water issues and actions that lead to environmental degradation. To build that awareness, three elements have been incorporated in the Education and Public Awareness Plan: WATER SUPPLY AND WATER CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT PLAN DATE: SEPTEMBER 2003 P:\2317-002\TASK 13\FINAL REPORT SEP. 2003\FINAL WORD\WS EXEC SUMMARY.DOC ES-19 Executive Summary Public Awareness Campaign: Use multiple methods to present information to the general public and target audiences. Outreach and Education to Key Target Groups: Educate target groups of individuals who have some level of influence over the decisions to be made concerning water management. Primary and Secondary Education: Educate the next generation, i.e., school-aged children, on ways to wisely use water, to ensure protection of our water resources. Implementation Actions Water supply and water conservation management involves taking actions to meet short-term, long-term and ongoing needs and goals. This WS Plan was developed with a 30-year planning horizon, and it includes a suite of strategies and activities to be implemented over time by local governments, the District, and EPD. Table ES-4 summarizes the responsibilities for implementing the WS Plan. Table ES-4 Implementation Responsibilities Responsible Entity Local Government, Utility or Authority District DNR/EPD GEFA Others Program Element Implement water conservation program Expand, construct, upgrade and retire water treatment plants and distribution infrastructure. Increase return flow to the Chattahoochee River from DeKalb County. Provide for interconnections of water systems for reliability. Reclaim water for Lake Lanier by Forsyth, Gwinnett and Hall counties. Develop local Water Management Plans. Fund capital improvements. Evaluate opportunities for public-private partnerships. Negotiate a Regional Permit with the Corps of Engineers for District projects. Promote education and public awareness. Develop unified funding appeal for federal assistance for District projects. Develop model inter-jurisdictional agreements. Establish a fair share funding formula framework. Establish level of service expectations, and commitments. Establish a formal system of dispute resolution. Explore most appropriate role for State. Publicize and reward successful partnerships. Review Plan annually and report to EPD Director. Update Plan no less frequently than every 5 years. Sponsor and enact water conservation legislation. Establish a streamlined permitting process for District projects. Use WS Plan to allocate water withdrawals. Explore most appropriate role for State. Publicize and reward successful partnerships. Modify permits for consistency with the WS Plan. Increase gap financing available for District projects. Explore most appropriate role for State. Publicize and reward successful partnerships. Enact water conservation legislation. WATER SUPPLY AND WATER CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT PLAN DATE: SEPTEMBER 2003 P:\2317-002\TASK 13\FINAL REPORT SEP. 2003\FINAL WORD\WS EXEC SUMMARY.DOC ES-20 Executive Summary Assessment of Progress The planning process used to develop the WS Plan was designed to meet the District's overall goals, the requirements of Senate Bill 130, and the planning standards developed by the EPD. It includes measures to assess progress toward meeting the goals and indicators to demonstrate the trend towards achieving full implementation. Senate Bill 130 provides for annual review of the WS Plan with updates no less than every 5 years. It is essential that an updated plan be prepared no less frequently than every 5 years in order to allow for appropriate adjustments. The following changes in the WS Plan's assumptions would require updates of the WS Plan, as these events would impact its essential elements: Return of reclaimed water to the lakes is not permitted; Changes to EPD guidance on limiting factors for the ACF and ACT basins; Changes to interbasin transfer policies, by legislation or judicial decisions; Water conservation is not implemented or does not produce the estimated results; Georgia Power heat load is not removed from the Chattahoochee River; and Chattahoochee River is designated as a primary trout stream. Conclusion This first regional long-term planning effort is a milestone in developing a water supply and water conservation management strategy for the 16-counties comprising the District. It is a starting point in defining key issues affecting not only water, but also many related issues affecting quality of life and economic growth. It represents a set of management recommendations for sustaining the District's opportunities for economic development, while preserving environmental quality. It is premised upon equitably sharing the water resources of the District, and efficiently providing needed future services. The WS Plan defines supplies and treatment facilities, the need for inter-jurisdictional collaboration, a program for education and public awareness, and system interconnections. In addition, it identifies key planning assumptions that need to be tracked for external impacts to the WS Plan. Many entities, including local, state, federal and private, have actions required for successful implementation of the WS Plan. When fully implemented, this WS Plan preserves water supply and water quality throughout the District; minimizes consumptive practices; costs less than other options; adds reliability to infrastructure elements; promotes a collective voice supporting funding opportunities; and maintains the ownership, operation, and management with local jurisdictions supplemented by inter-jurisdictional collaboration. WATER SUPPLY AND WATER CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT PLAN DATE: SEPTEMBER 2003 P:\2317-002\TASK 13\FINAL REPORT SEP. 2003\FINAL WORD\WS EXEC SUMMARY.DOC ES-21 Section 1 Introduction The Metropolitan North Georgia Water Planning District (District) was established by the Georgia legislature in 2001 in Senate Bill 130 to address the pressing need for comprehensive water resources management in the 16-county area of metropolitan north Georgia. The District is a planning entity dedicated to developing comprehensive regional and watershed-specific plans that will be implemented by the local governments in the District. It is comprised of 16 counties, including Bartow, Cherokee, Clayton, Cobb, Coweta, DeKalb, Douglas, Fayette, Fulton, Forsyth, Gwinnett, Hall, Henry, Paulding, Rockdale, and Walton (see Figure 1-1). These counties lie primarily within the boundaries of five major river basins: Chattahoochee, Etowah (sub-basin of the Coosa), Flint, Oconee, and Ocmulgee. Small portions of the District are also in the Tallapoosa and other smaller basins of the Coosa River Basin. The legislature, in creating the District, mandated the preparation of three long-term plans: Water Supply and Water Conservation Management Plan Wastewater Management Plan District-wide Watershed Management Plan The Water Supply and Water Conservation Management Plan (WS Plan), provides strategies and recommendations for effective water supply management. It also includes the specific tasks and milestones for implementation of these recommendations. The overall goal of the WS Plan is to meet projected water demands without compromising environmental and downstream needs. This WS Plan builds upon the existing water supply management planning efforts that have taken place in the District. It is also the beginning of an iterative process of plan reviews and updates. Annual review of the wastewater, water supply and conservation, and watershed management plans are required, as stated in Senate Bill 130: "The District shall review...management plan(s) and (their) implementation annually to determine whether there is a need to update such plan(s) and shall report to the director the progress of implementation of its goals..." Senate Bill 130 also states that: "...the District shall prepare updated...management plan(s) no less frequently than every five years..." WATER SUPPLY AND CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT PLAN 1-1 DATE: SEPTEMBER 2003 P:\2317-002\Task 13\Final Report Sep. 2003\Final Word\Section 1 WS- Introduction.doc CLERMONT ADAIRSVILLE NELSON LULA WALESKA BALL GROUND GAINESVILLE GILLSVILLE Bartow KINGSTON WHITE CANTON Forsyth ,.-985 Lake Sidney OAKWOOD CARTERSVILLE EUHARLEE TAYLORSVILLE Allatoona ,.- EMERSON Lake 75 ACWORTH Cherokee HOLLY SPRINGS WOODSTOCK ,.-575 MOUNTAIN PARK ALPHARETTA CUMMING Lanier FLOWERY BRANCH Hall REST HAVEN BUFORD SUGAR HILL ,.-85 SUWANEE Paulding BRASWELL KENNESAW ROSWELL DULUTH BERKELEY LAKE Gwinnett DACULA DALLAS HIRAM POWDER SPRINGS MARIETTA Cobb SMYRNA ,.-285 /(400 NORCROSS DORAVILLE CHAMBLEE DeKalb LILBURN LAWRENCEVILLE GRAYSON SNELLVILLE LOGANVILLE AUSTELL ,.- LITHIA SPRINGS 20 VILLA RICA DOUGLASVILLE ATLANTA CLARKSTON STONE MOUNTAIN DECATUR PINE LAKE LITHONIA Rockdale BETWEEN Walton WALNUT GROVE JERSEY MONROE Douglas Fulton UNION CITY FAIRBURN EAST POINT HAPEVILLE FOREST COLLEGE PARK PARK LAKE CITY RIVERDALE MORROW CONYERS SOCIAL CIRCLE GOOD HOPE Coweta NEWNAN PALMETTO ,.-85 STOCKBRIDGE JONESBORO Fayette Clayton Henry TYRONE FAYETTEVILLE LOVEJOY MCDONOUGH PEACHTREE CITY HAMPTON SHARPSBURG WOOLSEY LOCUST GROVE Jackson Lake TURIN MORELAND SENOIA BROOKS West Point GRANTVILLE Lake CORINTH HARALSON Legend Rivers and Streams County Boundaries District Study Area Interstates Cities [BUCKHEAD] S:\MNGWPD\APRs\Task14-wmpfigures.apr, June 2003, HDYKE 5 0N 5 10 Miles Figure 1-1 District Study Area Metropolitan North Georgia Water Planning District Section 1: Introduction Planning Process A multi-step decision process was used to develop the WS Plan. This approach was designed to facilitate an open, reviewable planning procedure. It focused on specific District goals for water resource management, maximized the use of existing information, and assured completion within the schedule mandated in the law that established the District. Water Supply and Conservation Management Planning Steps The primary steps in the process included: Development of the District Policy Goals Goals for water supply and conservation management were developed in coordination with the wastewater and watershed management teams to assure consistency between water resource planning efforts (as discussed in the next section). Identification of Need Available data and studies were used to define existing water demands, sources, and water treatment capacity. These were compared with the projected water demands and treatment needs to determine the overall water resource needs. Development of Alternatives Water supply source, conservation, and treatment alternatives were developed in conjunction with the wastewater management alternatives to address the previously defined needs. Evaluation of Alternatives Using the policy goal derived criteria, the alternatives were evaluated to select the recommended solution. Preparation of the Implementation Plan Once the recommended solution was identified, the implementation plan was developed. Preparation of the Draft Water Supply and Conservation Management Plan - A draft plan was prepared and reviewed by the District Board, Technical Coordinating Committee, Basin Advisory Councils, and the public. Comments on this draft were incorporated into the final plan. Preparation of the Water Supply and Conservation Management Plan The WS Plan is the culmination of the previous sequential planning steps. Recommendations in this document were evaluated against the District Policy Goals and the Georgia Environmental Protection Division (EPD) Planning Standards to assure that the final WS Plan meets the goals for regional water management. Public Participation A cornerstone of the decision process for the WS Plan was a series of facilitated meetings with the Technical Coordinating Committee (TCC) and six Basin Advisory Councils, or BACs (Chattahoochee, Etowah, Lake Lanier, Oconee, Ocmulgee, and Flint). The TCC was comprised of local county and city technical staff and served as a technical advisory group to provide WATER SUPPLY AND WATER CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT PLAN 1-3 DATE: SEPTEMBER 2003 P:\2317-002\TASK 13\FINAL REPORT SEP. 2003\FINAL WORD\SECTION 1 WS- INTRODUCTION.DOC Section 1: Introduction information, guidance, and feedback during preparation of the WS Plan. These regional resources contributed significant effort to the planning process and provided critical technical information and direction to the District and the consultant team. The BACs were consulted on each of the major deliverables in the planning process. Feedback and suggestions from both groups were used to refine the recommendations through each successive step. Comments from the TCC and BACs were captured during each meeting using computer terminals and a professional facilitator. This facilitated input process greatly reduced the time needed to assimilate the feedback and assured participants that their comments were captured in the process. Policy Goals The District's Policy Goals, shown in abbreviated form in Figure 1-2, served as guideposts for evaluating the water management alternatives. Key elements were evaluated with these goals in mind. The Policy Goals guided the development of all three planning studies (water supply, wastewater, and watershed). FIGURE 1-2 District Policy Goals Planning Assumptions The District planning efforts are not growth management plans. They are responsive plans that build on estimated population and employment projections that were based on historical growth patterns in the District. The requirements and standards for the planning efforts were established in both Senate Bill 130 and the EPD Planning Standards. Prior to development of the solutions for water and wastewater management, additional minimum requirements were identified and assigned as screening criteria. Table 1-1 summarizes the screening criteria. All solutions had to meet these screening criteria to be considered viable for the District. WATER SUPPLY AND WATER CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT PLAN 1-4 DATE: SEPTEMBER 2003 P:\2317-002\TASK 13\FINAL REPORT SEP. 2003\FINAL WORD\SECTION 1 WS- INTRODUCTION.DOC Section 1: Introduction TABLE 1-1 Screening Criteria for the Water Supply and Wastewater Management Plans Criterion Meet projected demands Follow EPD guidance for limiting factors for the ACF and ACT basins Meet in-stream standards Definition Provide water supply and wastewater capacity to meet projected demands through 2030, allowing for consideration of water conservation. Limit net surface water withdrawals to 705 MGD in the Chattahoochee Basin1. Limit interbasin transfer from the Etowah Basin to 100 MGD by 2030. Return to the Chattahoochee River at least 58% of the water withdrawn. Meet streamflow requirements in the Chattahoochee River and in the Etowah Basin. Meet EPD's in-stream water quality and flow standards, according to water use classification. Report Organization This document is the recommended WS Plan for the District. It is based on a series of interim reports and technical memoranda that were developed during the planning process and reviewed with the TCC and BACs. It includes the recommendations and rationale for each of the management plan components. In addition, the document includes the specific recommended tasks, milestones, and responsibilities (and estimated costs) for the implementation of the WS Plan. This document is organized as follows: Executive Summary Provides a summary of the entire plan. Section 1, Introduction Describes the water supply and conservation management planning process and the contents of the document. Section 2, Plan Overview Provides an overview of the major components of the recommended WS Plan. Section 3, Existing Water Supply and Treatment Conditions Summarizes the current conditions across the District, including existing water supplies, water treatment facilities, and interconnections. Section 4, Water Demand Projections Provides the methodology and results for population, employment, and water demand forecasts. Section 5, Water Conservation Analysis Provides a summary of the development and evaluation of water conservation options. Section 6, Water Supply Issues and Source Evaluation Summarizes the water supply issues and limitations considered in developing the WS Plan. Section 7, Alternatives Development and Evaluation Summarizes the process and interim steps that were taken to develop the WS Plan. WATER SUPPLY AND WATER CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT PLAN 1-5 DATE: SEPTEMBER 2003 P:\2317-002\TASK 13\FINAL REPORT SEP. 2003\FINAL WORD\SECTION 1 WS- INTRODUCTION.DOC Section 1: Introduction Section 8, Water Conservation Program Describes the recommended water conservation program. Section 9, Planned Water Supplies Facilities Provides an overview of the recommended infrastructure improvements included in the recommended WS Plan. Section 10, Water System Interconnections Describes the recommended water systems interconnection program. Section 11, Local Planning Recommendations Describes the role and requirements for local plans. Section 12, Plan Flexibility - Presents guidelines regarding the extent to which local jurisdictions can modify the WS Plan while remaining consistent with its essential elements. Section 13, Legislative and Regulatory Recommendations Summarizes the legal and regulatory changes to facilitate implementation of water supply and conservation management in the District. Section 14, Governance and Inter-jurisdictional Collaboration Summarizes roles and responsibilities for the District, state agencies, and local governments. Section 15, Funding Summarizes the potential funding mechanisms for the recommended WS Plan and the District operations. Section 16, Education and Public Awareness Includes the recommended programs for education and public awareness directly related to water supply and conservation management. Section 17, Implementation Actions Includes the specific actions, milestones, and responsibilities for implementation of the recommended WS Plan. Section 18, Assessment of Progress Includes the performance measures that will be used to assess implementation progress. Integration of District Planning Efforts The District's planning efforts included a Long-term Wastewater Management Plan, a Districtwide Watershed Management Plan, and a Short-term Wastewater Plan in addition to this WS Plan. An overall goal for the District was to integrate the planning efforts to ensure consistency and synergy to the greatest extent possible. Throughout the development of the WS Plan, the Long-term Wastewater Management Plan, and the District-wide Watershed Management Plan, there were continuous opportunities for coordination (Figure 1-3). WATER SUPPLY AND WATER CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT PLAN 1-6 DATE: SEPTEMBER 2003 P:\2317-002\TASK 13\FINAL REPORT SEP. 2003\FINAL WORD\SECTION 1 WS- INTRODUCTION.DOC Section 1: Introduction FIGURE 1-3 Integration of the Three District Long-term Plans Integration of the three planning studies included: Inventory of existing water quality conditions, and existing waster and wastewater permits within the District; Evaluation of water quality conditions under various wastewater, water supply, and watershed conditions; Evaluation of the effects of water conservation on future water and wastewater needs; Evaluation of impacts of wastewater discharge locations to water supply quantity and quality; and Development of public education and awareness recommendations. Based on these collaborative efforts, the WS Plan recommendations reflect the influences of the recommended wastewater and watershed plans. Key benefits and synergies between the WS Plan recommendations and the wastewater and watershed plans are summarized below: Water Supply and Conservation The water supply and conservation management recommendations address the need to meet projected water demands. The water conservation recommendations reduce consumptive uses that do not return flows to surface waters. Wastewater Management - The recommendations for water conservation reduce the projected wastewater flows by reducing indoor water use. This delays the capital investments for increasing wastewater treatment capacity in the District. Watershed Management The recommendations provide significant reductions in hydrologic changes by reducing outdoor water use. This results in higher stream flows and increased assimilative capacity. WATER SUPPLY AND WATER CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT PLAN 1-7 DATE: SEPTEMBER 2003 P:\2317-002\TASK 13\FINAL REPORT SEP. 2003\FINAL WORD\SECTION 1 WS- INTRODUCTION.DOC Section 2 Plan Overview The studies of potential water supply and projected water demand that were performed to prepare the WS Plan produced two key findings that have shaped the WS Plan's recommendations. These findings are: Future withdrawals (anticipated by 17 independent water utilities within the District) from the Chattahoochee River/Lake Lanier watershed system will exceed the safe yield of this water source by 2030 if current plans are followed. Water demands within the District as a whole could exceed District water resources by 2030 without concerted and coordinated efforts by District water users to conserve water and develop new sources. In response to these two findings, the WS Plan presented in this document proposes the following strategies: Reallocation of Lake Lanier and Lake Allatoona for water supply Intensification of water conservation efforts Construction of at least five planned new reservoirs Sharing of water resources within the District to meet local needs Reclamation of water by indirect potable reuse through Lake Lanier The WS Plan is dependent on all five of the strategies listed above to meet water demands over the next three decades, and to provide a small amount of supply in excess of demand to allow for contingencies that may arise over the planning period. Possible contingencies could include faster growth than that anticipated in projections, conservation measures falling short of anticipated demand reductions, or a planned reservoir being unable to receive a permit. To provide the capability within the WS Plan to deal with such contingencies, it is essential that all five of the listed strategies be included in the WS Plan. With the strategies outlined above, District water supplies will exceed demands by only approximately 10 percent in 2030. This narrow margin of supply over demand shows that the 30-year projected population growth of the District can be accommodated, but only with coordinated planning of water resource use. WATER SUPPLY AND WATER CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT PLAN 2-1 DATE: SEPTEMBER 2003 P:\2317-002\TASK 13\FINAL REPORT SEP. 2003\FINAL WORD\SECTION 2 WS- PLAN OVERVIEW.DOC Section 2: Plan Overview Critical Strategies By 2030, the District will be utilizing almost all of its water resources. Any effort or project that increases those resources also frees up resources elsewhere in the District that can be used by other jurisdictions. Consequently, any effort or project that increases water resources is critical not only to the jurisdiction(s) immediately involved, but also to the other jurisdictions of the District. Table 2-1 summarizes the WS Plan's critical strategies and the corresponding amount of water to be obtained from them. TABLE 2-1 Added Water Supply or Reduced Demand for 2030 from Critical Strategies Type of New Source Amount (AADD-MGD) Reallocation of Lake Lanier and Lake Allatoona 153 Added Conservation Measures 136 New Reservoirs1 114 Water Reclamation through Indirect Potable Reuse2 67 Resource Sharing/System Connections3 42 1 New reservoirs included are Hickory Log Creek (45 AADD-MGD), Cedar Creek (7 AADD-MGD), Hard Labor Creek (28 AADD-MGD for District use), Tussahaw (26 AADD-MGD), Lake McIntosh (8 AADD-MGD). Other new reservoirs are acceptable within the WS Plan, but among currently planned reservoirs these are furthest along in the permitting process and are considered most likely to be constructed. 2 Indirect Potable Reuse is calculated as the amount of reclaimed water discharged to Lake Lanier (117 AADD-MGD) minus the amount anticipated in current yield estimates for the Lake (50 AADD-MGD). Reclaimed water contributions from various jurisdictions are described in the Long-term Wastewater Management Plan. 3 Resource sharing and system connections do not create additional water supply, but by distributing water to meet local needs, these measures remove the need to create new sources such as new reservoirs. Planned sharing arrangements include Cobb County Marietta Water Authority to Fulton County (33 AADD-MGD) and City of Atlanta to Coweta County (9 AADD-MGD). Meeting 2030 Demands Currently, the permitted District water supply is approximately 933 million gallons per day on an annual average basis (AADD-MGD). Without the water conservation program proposed in the WS Plan, District demand has been projected to be nearly 1,217 AADD-MGD in 2030. With the WS Plan's conservation program, projected 2030 demand is reduced by 11 percent to approximately 1,081 AADD-MGD, as illustrated in Figure 2-1. FIGURE 2-1 Projection of Water Supply and Demand WATER SUPPLY AND WATER CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT PLAN 2-2 DATE: SEPTEMBER 2003 P:\2317-002\TASK 13\FINAL REPORT SEP. 2003\FINAL WORD\SECTION 2 WS- PLAN OVERVIEW.DOC Section 2: Plan Overview Within the WS Plan, the combination of reallocating Lake Lanier and Lake Allatoona, constructing new reservoirs, and reclaiming water through indirect potable reuse will add 334 AADD-MGD of water supply for District use. These additional supplies will bring District water supplies to 1267 AADD-MGD. If the recommended conservation program is successfully implemented, the projected Water treatment capacity need for the District in 2030 is 1,729 MGD for the peak day (PDD-MGD). That means that over 572 PDD-MGD of water treatment plant capacity, an increase of 49 percent over today's capacity, needs to be constructed over the next 30 years. Features of the Plan The significant features of the recommended WS Plan for 2030 are: Primary water supply sources: Lake Allatoona and Lake Lanier, and the FIGURE 2-2 Use of Water Supply Sources in 2030 Chattahoochee River remain the primary water supply sources, providing 76 percent of the District's water supply need. Figure 2-2 shows the percent supplied by each type of water supply source. Supply is available through 2030: With proper management, there is sufficient water supply to meet the District's needs through 2030. What is done until 2030 determines what the District's options will beyond 2030. New reliance on water conservation: Water conservation is a basic element of the WS Plan, because it reduces demand. This is essential for the District to function within the capability of its water resources. The recommended water conservation program can reduce 2030 demand by an estimated 11 percent. Moving towards a more significant role for reuse: A small amount of indirect potable reuse is included in the WS Plan. It is expected that indirect potable reuse will increase beyond 2030 to meet increasing demands. Therefore, building public acceptance through public education and demonstrated success will be important between now and 2030. EPD guidance on water allocation limits: The WS Plan assumes limits provided in guidance from EPD for the Apalachicola-Chattahoochee-Flint (ACF) and Alabama- Coosa-Tallapoosa (ACT) River Basins. Reallocation of storage in Lakes Lanier and Allatoona must be completed to meet these limits. EPD guidance for the ACF basin included a reallocation of water from Lake Lanier/Chattahoochee River Basin of 705 MGD for water supply above Peachtree Creek. The maximum annual average WATER SUPPLY AND WATER CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT PLAN 2-3 DATE: SEPTEMBER 2003 P:\2317-002\TASK 13\FINAL REPORT SEP. 2003\FINAL WORD\SECTION 2 WS- PLAN OVERVIEW.DOC Section 2: Plan Overview withdrawal of 705 MGD includes water withdrawals of 280 MGD above Buford Dam and 425 MGD below Buford Dam. Approximately 41 MGD will be allocated for users upstream of the District in the Chattahoochee River Basin, including Lumpkin, White, and Habersham Counties. EPD guidance for the ACT basin has identified target amounts of withdrawals from streams in the basin. The EPD guidance included annual average water withdrawal limits are 200 MGD for Lake Allatoona, 60 MGD for Carters Lake, and 20 MGD for users upstream of the District. Interbasin transfer from the Coosa (Etowah) River Basin is limited to 100 MGD in the year 2020 and beyond. Completion of reservoir sources currently in permitting process: The following sources, which are a critical part of meeting the District's water supply needs, are in the permitting processes: o Hickory Log Creek Reservoir: Proposed use by Cobb County-Marietta Water Authority and the City of Canton o Lake McIntosh: Proposed use by Fayette County o Hard Labor Creek Reservoir: Proposed use by Walton County o Tussahaw Reservoir: Proposed use by Henry County o Cedar Creek Reservoir: Proposed use by Hall County These reservoirs need to be permitted and operational to meet 2030 demands. Only these reservoirs are relied upon in the WS Plan. Other reservoirs, if they prove feasible and can be permitted, should be viewed as consistent with the WS Plan. Examples of such potential reservoirs include the South Fulton Reservoir on Bear Creek in south Fulton and Glades Reservoir in Hall County. Figure 2-3 and Table 2-2 show the water treatment plants proposed for 2030. Key features of the WS Plan with regard to treatment plants are: Most water treatment plants (WTPs) remain in service: Additional capacity will be provided, primarily at existing plants. Some standardization of treatment methods may be necessary where jurisdictions mix finished water. Thirty-five WTPs will be required District-wide by 2030 (including 1 new, 25 existing (or under construction) with expansion, 9 existing not needing expansion, and 4 existing to be phased-out). Changes in areas served by existing plants: The current service areas of several WTPs in the District will need to be reconfigured by 2030. The service area transitions will span the 30-year planning period. Water system interconnections: Interconnections of water systems will be advanced to increase water system reliability and security, as well as to support projected water demand growth. Refined local water supply plans: Local jurisdictions will be required to refine their water supply and conservation plans to maintain consistency with the WS Plan. Demand centers are identified by numbers in Figure 2-3 and on Tables 2-2. WATER SUPPLY AND WATER CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT PLAN 2-4 DATE: SEPTEMBER 2003 P:\2317-002\TASK 13\FINAL REPORT SEP. 2003\FINAL WORD\SECTION 2 WS- PLAN OVERVIEW.DOC Legend = Demand Center Boundary 1 = Demand Center = County Boundaries = Lakes = Streams WTP's: Existing without Expansion River Basins = Chattahoochee River Basin = Coosa River Basin = Tallapoosa River Basin = Flint River Basin = Ocmulgee River Basin = Oconee River Basin Existing with Expansion New Coosawattee Subbasin Oostanaula Subbasin COOSA RIVER BASIN CHATTAHOOCHEE RIVER BASIN Adairsville Lewis Spring WTP Gainesville Riverside WTP 1 Cartersville Clarence B. Walker WTP Cherokee Etowah River WTP Etowah Subbasin Forsyth Gainesville Cumming WTP WTP Lakeside WTP LAKE 4 Canton WTP SIDNEY LANIER Hall Cedar Creek WTP LAKE ALLATOONA 2 3 Gwinnett Shoal Creek WTP Gwinnett Lake Lanier WTP CCMWA Hugh A. Wyckoff WTP 33 MGD AAD (Cobb to Fulton) Buford WTP Atlanta-Fulton County WTP OCONEE RIVER BASIN 27 MGD AADD CCMWA James E. Quarles WTP 8 DeKalb (Cobb to Paulding) 5 Scott Candler WTP 1 MGD AADD (Cobb to Douglas) Chattahoochee WTP Atlanta Hemphill WTP Monroe WTP TALLAPOOSA RIVER 9 BASIN DDCWSA Bear Creek WTP 7 Rockdale Big 6 East Point WTP Haynes Creek WTP 14 15 Walton New Hard Labor Creek WTP Walton Lake Varner WTP Coweta BT Brown WTP Newnan Norred WTP 10 9 MGD AADD (Fulton to Coweta) 12 Clayton W.J. Hooper WTP Clayton Freeman Fayetteville WTP Road WTP McDonough WTP 11 Fayette Crosstown WTP 13 Clayton J.W. Smith WTP Henry Tussahaw WTP South Fayette WTP Henry Towaliga WTP 3 MGD AADD (City of Griffin to Coweta) FLINT RIVER BASIN OCMULGEE RIVER BASIN Metro trict orgia Wat politan North Ge er Planning Dis 2317_001_Maps_ES-6W/2-3_p2.fh9 Metropolitan North Georgia Water Planning District Demand Centers District Water Plan Date: September 2003 Scale: As Shown Job No.: 2317.001 Figure 2-3 Section 2: Plan Overview The demand centers match treatment plant(s) with the demands they serve, but the demand centers do not indicate which utility(ies) will operate the system within the demand center. Local planning with inter-jurisdictional cooperation will be required to determine service area boundaries and operations for each facility. TABLE 2-2 Summary of Recommended Water Supply Sources and Water Treatment Facilities Demand Center Where Water Goes No. (See Map) County County County Areas in Demands Demands Where Water Comes From Proposed Proposed 2030 2005 Plant 2030 Withdrawal Capacity Capacity Demand (AADD- (PDD- (AADD- (PDD- (PDD- Center MGD) MGD) Water Treatment Plants & Sources MGD) MGD) MGD) 1 Bartow 43 69 Adairsville WTP/Lewis Spring 3 5 5 Cartersville and/or Bartow WTPs/Lake Allatoona 40 27 64 Total 43 69 Total 43 32 69 2 Cherokee 40 64 Canton WTP/Etowah River and Hickory Log Creek Reservoir 11 0 18 CCWSA Etowah River WTP/Etowah River and Yellow Creek Reservoir 29 27 46 Total 40 64 Total 40 27 64 3 Forsyth 57 91 Cumming WTP/Lake Lanier Forsyth WTP/Lake Lanier 57 18 14 91 Total 57 91 Total 57 32 91 4 Hall 49 78 Gainesville Riverside WTP/Lake Lanier Gainesville Lakeside WTP/Lake Lanier 42 25 10 67 Hall Cedar Creek WTP/Cedar Creek Impoundment 7 3 11 Total 49 78 Total 49 38 78 5 Cobb 113 181 CCMWA Wyckoff WTP/Lake Allatoona 120 72 191 Douglas 1 1 CCMWA Quarles WTP/Chattahoochee River 54 87 87 Fulton 33 53 Paulding 27 43 Total 174 278 Total 174 159 278 6 Fulton 221 354 Atlanta-Fulton Co. WTP/Chattahoochee River 96 90 155 Coweta 9 15 Atlanta Chattahoochee WTP/Chattahoochee River 41 65 65 Atlanta Hemphill WTP/Chattahoochee River 85 137 137 East Point WTP/Sweetwater Creek 8 12 12 Total 230 369 Total 230 304 369 7 DeKalb 128 205 DeKalb Scott Candler WTP/Chattahoochee River 128 150 205 Total 128 205 Total 128 150 205 8 Gwinnett 165 264 Gwinnett Lake Lanier WTP/Lake Lanier 94 150 150 Gwinnett Shoal Creek WTP/Lake Lanier 68 75 110 Buford WTP/Lake Lanier 3 2 4 Total 165 264 Total 165 227 264 WATER SUPPLY AND WATER CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT PLAN 2-6 DATE: SEPTEMBER 2003 P:\2317-002\TASK 13\FINAL REPORT SEP. 2003\FINAL WORD\SECTION 2 WS- PLAN OVERVIEW.DOC Section 2: Plan Overview Demand Center Where Water Goes No. (See Map) County Areas in County Demands County Demands Where Water Goes Proposed Proposed 2030 2005 Plant 2030 Withdrawal Capacity Capacity Demand (AADD- (PDD- (AADD- (PDD- (PDD- Center MGD) MGD) County Areas in Demand Center MGD) MGD) MGD) 9 Douglas 23 37 DDCWSA Bear Creek WTP/Dog River and Bear Creek Reservoirs 23 16 37 Total 23 37 Total 23 16 37 10 Coweta 20 31 Newnan H. Norred WTP/JT Haynes Reservoir 11 12 17 Coweta BT Brown WTP/Cedar Creek Reservoir 6 7 10 Purchase from City of Griffin 3 0 4 Total 20 31 Total 20 19 31 11 Fayette 25 40 Fayette Crosstown WTP/Existing and Lake McIntosh 22 14 35 Fayette South WTP/Existing Sources 6 Fayetteville WTP 3 3 5 Total 25 40 Total 25 23 40 12 Clayton 42 67 Clayton JW Smith WTP/JW Smith and Shoal Creek Reservoirs 12 Clayton WJ Hooper WTP/WJ Hooper Reservoir 42 20 67 Clayton Freeman Road WTP/Blalock Reservoir 10 Total 42 67 Total 42 42 67 13 Henry 41 66 Henry Towaliga WTP/Towaliga Reservoir and Other Sources 40 24 64 Henry Tussahaw WTP/Tussahaw Reservoir 26 McDonough WTP/J. Fargason Reservoir 1 2 2 Total 41 66 Total 41 52 66 14 Rockdale 25 40 Rockdale Big Haynes Creek WTP/Big Haynes Creek (Randy Poynter Lake) 25 22 40 Total 25 15 Walton 19 40 Total 30 Monroe WTP/JT Briscoe Reservoir 25 22 40 5 10 101 Walton/Newton Lake Varner WTP/Cornish Creek Reservoir 5 4 8 Total Walton New Hard Labor Creek WTP/Hard Labor Creek Reservoir 9 19 30 Total 19 - 14 14 321 DISTRICT TOTAL 1,081 1,729 1,081 1,157 1,7311 1 At the Monroe WTP, the WTP capacity is greater than the demand in 2030. The 2 PDD-MGD of additional capacity will be available for use beyond 2030. Notes: Water treatment plant (WTP), average annual daily demand (AADD), peak daily demand (PDD), million gallons per day (MGD), Cherokee County Water and Sewer Authority (CCWSA), Cobb County-Marietta Water Authority (CCMWA), Douglasville-Douglas County Water and Sewer Authority (DDCWSA); where proposed 2030 capacity is allocated to more than one plant, it is to be shared between them, as determined by joint local water supply management planning. WATER SUPPLY AND WATER CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT PLAN 2-7 DATE: SEPTEMBER 2003 P:\2317-002\TASK 13\FINAL REPORT SEP. 2003\FINAL WORD\SECTION 2 WS- PLAN OVERVIEW.DOC Section 2: Plan Overview Water Conservation Program Section 8 of this document describes the recommended water conservation program for the District. This program consists of 11 conservation measures, as follows: Establish conservation pricing by all District utilities; Enact legislation to require plumbing retrofits on home re-sales; Enact legislation to require low-flush urinals for new industrial, commercial and institutional buildings; Enact legislation to require rain sensor shut-off switches on new irrigation systems; Require sub-unit meters in new multi-family buildings; Assess and reduce water system leakage; Conduct residential water audits; Distribute low-flow retrofit kits to residential users; Conduct commercial water audits; Implement education and public awareness plan; and Establish review and oversight of water conservation implementation and performance. Together, these conservation measures have been projected to reduce District 2030 water demands by 136 AADD-MGD. This is an 11 percent reduction from projected demands without the conservation measures. The 11 measures were selected based upon an evaluation process that is described in Section 5. The implementation of each of the 11 measures is discussed in detail in Section 8. Water Supply Facilities Section 9 presents the highlights of the WS Plan for water supply facilities, while Appendix B presents more detailed facilities plans for each county in the District. The highlights of the facilities Plan presented in Section 9 include: Support reallocation of Lake Lanier and Lake Allatoona for water supply; Support permitting and construction of at least five new water supply reservoirs; Construct two new system connections and maintain one existing system connection to allow water resource sharing; Construct a new water treatment plant in Walton County; Expand 25 existing water treatment plants; Retire 4 existing water treatment plants; and Return reclaimed water to Lake Lanier by Forsyth, Gwinnett, and Hall Counties for future indirect potable reuse. The implementation of each of these highlights is discussed in detail in Section 9. WATER SUPPLY AND WATER CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT PLAN 2-8 DATE: SEPTEMBER 2003 P:\2317-002\TASK 13\FINAL REPORT SEP. 2003\FINAL WORD\SECTION 2 WS- PLAN OVERVIEW.DOC Section 2: Plan Overview Water System Interconnections Section 10 describes WS Plan recommendations regarding system interconnections that will provide reliable emergency standby water sources throughout the District. Three action items are presented and described for the interconnection program. These are: Set interconnection reliability targets; Establish sample water sharing agreements; and Develop or update local emergency water plans. An analysis of interconnection requirements between District counties was performed based on providing a minimum of 35 percent of AADD in an emergency. Preliminary recommendations are reviewed in Section 10 for specific 2030 interconnections. Local Planning Recommendations Section 11 describes the local planning effort required in the WS Plan. Local plans are needed to address local needs and site-specific issues, to refine and improve the WS Plan, and to demonstrate consistency with the WS Plan. Two action items are presented to describe the implementation of the local planning effort. These are: Develop local water management plans; and Review local plans for consistency with the WS Plan. The recommended contents of the local plans are discussed in Section 10. Local plans will address : Water Supply, Conservation, and Reuse Management Water Treatment Facilities Distribution System and Interconnections Facilities Flexibility Recommendations Section 12 describes the flexibility of the WS Plan. This section identifies two processes whereby the WS Plan can be changed or refined. These are the development of local plans and the updating of the WS Plan every 5 years. The degree to which the WS Plan can be changed while remaining consistent with the goal of serving District 2030 water demands with available and anticipated resources is described in terms of 6 essential elements of the WS Plan. These are: WATER SUPPLY AND WATER CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT PLAN 2-9 DATE: SEPTEMBER 2003 P:\2317-002\TASK 13\FINAL REPORT SEP. 2003\FINAL WORD\SECTION 2 WS- PLAN OVERVIEW.DOC Section 2: Plan Overview Reallocation of Lake Lanier and Lake Allatoona for water supply Intensification of water conservation efforts Construction of at least 5 new reservoirs Sharing of water resources within the District to meet local needs Reclamation of water by indirect potable reuse through Lake Lanier Interconnection of District systems to provide reliability for emergencies To illustrate the recommended level of flexibility with regard to each of these essential elements, specific examples of possible WS Plan changes are discussed in Section 12. Regulatory Recommendations Permitting decisions and approvals will be facilitated by a WS Plan. The WS Plan will furnish regulating agencies with necessary background information for determining the regional implications of permitting decisions. Section 13 recommends three regulatory actions: Develop a Regional Section 404 permit for the District Streamline EPD permitting for District projects Allocate water withdrawals according to the WS Plan. Each of these action items is intended to make the permitting process quicker and more predictable for District jurisdictions. Implementation details are provided in Section 13. Governance Recommendations Section 14 presents governance recommendations that will assist District jurisdictions with moving beyond coordination of activities, toward engaging in active collaboration. The WS Plan includes provisions to address governance issues associated with the greater degree of interjurisdictional collaboration that will be required. Many jurisdictions already work together to manage water supply. Their successful experience can benefit jurisdictions that will need to develop new agreements. Several provisions included in the WS Plan are: Model inter-jurisdictional agreements Fair share funding formula framework Level of service assurances Formal system of dispute resolution Increased state role Process for modifying the WS Plan Publicity and rewards for successful partnerships Funding Funding of the WS Plan involves the cost of the proposed capital improvements, as well as the cost of the other programs included in the WS Plan. These are estimated to be in the range of $26 billion spread over the next 30 years, as summarized in Table 2-3. WATER SUPPLY AND WATER CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT PLAN DATE: SEPTEMBER 2003 P:\2317-002\TASK 13\FINAL REPORT SEP. 2003\FINAL WORD\SECTION 2 WS- PLAN OVERVIEW.DOC 2-10 Section 2: Plan Overview TABLE 2-3 Estimated Costs for District Water Supply and Conservation Plan for 2003 to 2030 Item Infrastructure Reservoirs Treatment Facilities Distribution System Treatment O&M Distribution System O&M Programmatic and Policy Measures Total Projected Costs by Time Period 2001 to 2010 2011 to 2020 2021 to 2030 ($ billion) ($ billion) ($billion) Total for 30 Years ($ billion) $ 0.2 $ 0.6 $ 2.5 $ 1.0 $ 3.2 $ 0.1 $ 7.6 0 $ 0.5 $ 2.5 $ 1.4 $ 4.1 $ 0.1 $ 8.6 0 $ 0.8 $ 2.5 $ 1.9 $ 5.0 $ 0.1 $ 10.3 $ 0.2 $ 1.9 $ 7.5 $ 4.3 $ 12.3 $ 0.3 $ 26.5 Funding of these costs will come from traditional sources, such as revenue bonds for capital improvements, and from innovative sources, such as possible gap funding through Georgia Environmental Facilities Authority (GEFA) or federal funding. The costs will largely be borne by the users of water supply services within the District. The District's funding will largely come from the members, although state and federal grant money could support some of its operations. Education and Public Awareness As part of the WS Plan, SB 130 requires the development of an Education and Public Awareness (E&PA) Program that will outline measures the District can implement to raise public awareness of water supply and water conservation management issues and educate target groups that have some level of influence over water management. The provisions include the following: Raising public awareness of water supply and conservation issues among 75 to 90 percent of the District's population by 2006; Educating the public and identified target groups in order to increase awareness and encourage behavioral changes; and Coordinating with existing agencies and governmental entities to maximize the visibility of the District and its message. Integration with Other District Plans The solutions included in the WS Plan are integrated with the District's other two concurrent planning activities, the Long-term Wastewater Management Plan and the District-wide Watershed Management Plan. All three plans function together to provide solutions to the water resources issues in the District. WATER SUPPLY AND WATER CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT PLAN DATE: SEPTEMBER 2003 P:\2317-002\TASK 13\FINAL REPORT SEP. 2003\FINAL WORD\SECTION 2 WS- PLAN OVERVIEW.DOC 2-11 Section 3 Existing Water Supply and Treatment Conditions No one would have envisioned in 1837, when the City of Atlanta was staked out as the terminus of the Western and Atlantic Railroad, that it would become one of the fastest growing metropolitan areas in the United States. Whereas most major metropolitan areas have developed around major water supplies, the City of Atlanta developed in the headwaters of the Chattahoochee Basin, which is one of the smallest river basins serving a major metropolitan area in the country. The vast majority of the water supply for the District, over 99 percent, is from surface water sources included in the Chattahoochee River Basin, as well as the four other major river basins also with headwaters in and around the District: The Etowah, Flint, Ocmulgee, and Oconee River Basins. Approximately 652 MGD of potable water is currently provided on an annual average daily basis to customers within the District through a series of raw water supplies and treatment facilities located in the five major river basins. Currently, interbasin transfers are a key element in supplying water throughout the District; there are water supply and wastewater transfers into and out of every basin in the District. Inter-jurisdictional water connections serve as a valuable means of providing emergency and routine finished water supplies to many water systems in the District. Existing Water Supplies Existing water supply sources in the District were identified through existing permits issued by the EPD, interviews with local utilities, and a literature review of available state, regional and local studies. Safe yield (yield) has been defined until recently as the maximum quantity of water, on an annual average daily basis, that is available during a critical drought, typically defined as a drought with an occurrence frequency of once in 50 years. The safe yield estimates provided in this section have been estimated in accordance with this definition. As of April 1, 2001, EPD put into effect a new minimum instream flow Buford Dam ensures water supply for nearly 60% of the District WATER SUPPLY AND WATER CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT PLAN 3-1 DATE: SEPTEMBER 2003 P:\2317-002\TASK 13\FINAL REPORT SEP. 2003\FINAL WORD\SECTION 3 WS- EXISTING SUPPLIES AND TREATMENT FACILITIES.DOC Section 3: Existing Water Supply and Treatment Conditions policy that will change the estimated safe yield of reservoirs receiving withdrawal permits after that date. The available yield of water supplies within the District, including both surface and groundwater, is currently estimated at 933 MGD on an annual average day basis. The District relies primarily on surface water from rivers and storage reservoirs as its main source for this water supply. The most significant water supply source for the region is the Chattahoochee River system, which includes Lake Lanier; this source accounts for more than 60 percent of the water supply in the District. Table 3-1 summarizes the surface water supply sources within the District. TABLE 3-1 Existing Surface Water Supplies Water Supply Source Chattahoochee River Basin Chattahoochee River Lake Lanier Bear Creek Reservoir Dog River Reservoir Big Creek Sweetwater Creek City of East Point Reservoir/Ben Hill Reservoir Cedar Creek Reservoirs Cedar Creek (B.T. Brown) Reservoir J.T. Haynes Reservoir Sandy Brown Creek Etowah River Basin Etowah River Hollis Q. Lathem (Yellow Creek) Reservoir/Etowah River Lake Allatoona Lewis Spring Owner/Operator Utilizing Resource Cobb County - Marietta Water Authority DeKalb County Water System City of Atlanta Atlanta - Fulton County Water Resources Commission City of Cumming Forsyth County Gwinnett County Public Utilities City of Buford City of Gainesville Douglasville-Douglas County Water and Sewer Authority Douglasville-Douglas County Water and Sewer Authority City of Roswell City of East Point City of East Point City of Palmetto Coweta County Newnan Utilities Newnan Utilities (fills J.T. Haynes Reservoir only). City of Canton Cherokee County Water and Sewerage Authority City of Cartersville Cobb County Marietta Water Authority City of Adairsville Yield1 (MGD) See Note 4 See Note 4 See Note 4 See Note 4 See Note 4 See Note 4 See Note 4 See Note 4 See Note 4 4.4 16 NAP NAP NA 1.0 NA 14 NA NAP 40 See Note 5 See Note 5 NA WATER SUPPLY AND WATER CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT PLAN DATE: SEPTEMBER 2003 P:\2317-002\TASK 13\FINAL REPORT SEP. 2003\FINAL WORD\SECTION 3 WS- EXISTING SUPPLIES AND TREATMENT FACILITIES.DOC Average Annual Monthly Withdrawal2 (MGD) 73 117 150 75 15 12 125 1.7 25 3.6 to 5.03 13.2 1.0 9.6 NA 0.4 6.4 11.7 6.7 4.5 15 19 65 3.4 3-2 Section 3: Existing Water Supply and Treatment Conditions Average Annual Monthly Owner/Operator Utilizing Yield1 Withdrawal2 Water Supply Source Flint River Basin Flint River Resource Clayton County Water Authority (fills J.W. Smith and Shoal (MGD) NAP (MGD) 5.0 to 33.06 Creek Reservoirs) Fayette County Water System NAP 13 (fills Lake Horton only) J.W. Smith and Shoal Creek Clayton County Water Authority 17 Combined 14.2 Reservoirs White Oak Creek Newnan Utilities NAP 5.8 Line Creek Newnan Utilities NAP 10 Hutchins' Lake City of Senoia NA 0.3 Whitewater Creek City of Fayetteville NAP 2.5 Lake Kedron/Lake Peachtree (Flat Fayette County Water System 5.7 Combined 3.8 Creek) Starrs Mill Pond on Whitewater Fayette County Water System NAP 2.5 Creek (fills Lake Horton only) Line Creek Fayette County Water System NAP 1.7 Lake Horton Ocmulgee River Basin Fayette County Water System 18 11.7 W.J.Hooper Reservoir (Little Cotton Clayton County Water Authority 20 16.7 Indian Creek) Blalock Reservoir/Pates Creek Clayton County Water Authority 10 8.3 John Fargason (Walnut Creek) City of McDonough 3.6 2.0 Reservoir S. Howell Gardner (Indian Creek) Henry County Water and 6.4 6.77 Reservoir Rowland (Long Branch) Reservoir Sewerage Authority Henry County Water and 8.2 8.37 Sewerage Authority Towaliga River Reservoirs (Strickland and Cole)3 Henry County Water and Sewerage Authority 14 9.2 combined Big Haynes Creek (Randy Poynter Rockdale County 27 18.4 Lake) Alcovy River Monroe Utilities Network (fills NA 5.3 John T. Briscoe Reservoir or to WTP) John T. Briscoe Reservoir Monroe Utilities Network 6.4 5.3 Lake Varner (Cornish Creek Walton County Water and Sewer NA 6.08 Reservoir) Authority Alcovy River City of Social Circle NAP 0.8 NA = Not Available. NAP = Not Applicable (river source). Notes: 1 Yield is based on reservoir yields from literature where available; otherwise the permitted average annual withdrawal is presented, 2Average Annual withdrawal was calculated by dividing the permitted maximum month withdrawal by 1.2. 3 Staggered withdrawal permit to maintain in-stream flows; maintained for emergency use only. 4 Based on EPD ACF guidance a 705 MGD maximum withdrawal above Peachtree Creek. 5Based on EPD ACT basin guidance a 200 MGD maximum withdrawal. 6Tiered withdrawal permit to maintain in-stream flows. 7Withdrawal permit exceeds yield due to supplemental in-flow from other Henry County reservoirs. 8Reservoir located in Newton County; Walton County WSA owns 25 percent of the capacity. WATER SUPPLY AND WATER CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT PLAN 3-3 DATE: SEPTEMBER 2003 P:\2317-002\TASK 13\FINAL REPORT SEP. 2003\FINAL WORD\SECTION 3 WS- EXISTING SUPPLIES AND TREATMENT FACILITIES.DOC Section 3: Existing Water Supply and Treatment Conditions Groundwater sources make up less than 1 percent of the total water supply in the District. Groundwater is not a significant source of water supply for the District, due to the underlying hydrogeologic conditions. High-yielding wells exist in certain parts of the District, but constitute a very small percentage of the documented wells. Additionally, groundwater quality across the District is widely variable and may not be suitable for use as drinking water or process water for industries. The development of new groundwater sources will generally be of the type found in Cobb County or Clayton County, where wells supplement (peak shaving) the existing surface water supplies rather than being a primary source. Table 3-2 summarizes the groundwater sources utilized for water supply within the District. TABLE 3-2 Existing Groundwater Supplies Owner/Operator Utilizing Resource Cobb County-Marietta Water Authority City of Flowery Branch City of White City of Emerson Bartow County Water System City of Ball Ground Fayette County Water System City of Fayetteville City of Grantville Shoal Creek Forest Subdivision Town of Brooks City of Jonesboro Clayton County Water Authority City of Lawrenceville City of McDonough City of Stockbridge NA = Not available 1Based on average annual month withdrawal. County Cobb Hall Bartow Bartow Bartow Cherokee Fayette Fayette Coweta Coweta Fayette Clayton Clayton Gwinnett Henry Henry Yield1 (MGD) 1.2 0.4 0.2 0.4 0.4 0.2 0.88 0.94 NA 0.15 0.02 NA 0.14 0.5 0.18 0.52 Interbasin Transfers The water and wastewater systems of the District operate as an interdependent service network. Generally speaking, water is moved from areas where it is available to areas where it is needed; likewise, wastewater is moved from water use points to available wastewater treatment facilities. Transfers of water and wastewater occur among municipalities, counties, and basins. Transfers among basins are particularly common within counties that straddle the ridges between two or more basins. This situation applies to 13 of the District's 16 counties, including the most populous counties of Cobb, DeKalb, Fulton, and Gwinnett Counties. Currently, interbasin transfers are a key element in supplying water throughout the District; there are water supply and wastewater transfers into and out of every basin in the District. The majority of water interbasin transfers are from the Chattahoochee River Basin. Residents in the Ocmulgee River Basin currently rely heavily on the Chattahoochee River Basin for water supply. Raw water is withdrawn from the Chattahoochee River Basin and is treated by DeKalb WATER SUPPLY AND WATER CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT PLAN 3-4 DATE: SEPTEMBER 2003 P:\2317-002\TASK 13\FINAL REPORT SEP. 2003\FINAL WORD\SECTION 3 WS- EXISTING SUPPLIES AND TREATMENT FACILITIES.DOC Section 3: Existing Water Supply and Treatment Conditions and Gwinnett Counties. DeKalb and Gwinnett Counties distribute water to areas inside and outside the Chattahoochee Basin. Smaller quantities are also exported from the Chattahoochee River Basin to the Flint, Etowah, and Oconee River Basins. Water is also transferred from Lake Allatoona (Etowah River Basin) to the Chattahoochee River Basin within Cobb County. Figure 3-1 summarizes the existing water and wastewater interbasin transfers in the District. FIGURE 3-1 Summary of Existing Interbasin Transfers Planned Reservoirs In addition to the 25 existing reservoirs presented previously in Table 3-1, there are eight reservoirs planned for the District in the near future, in various stages of the permitting process. Table 3-3 summarizes the planned reservoirs. This list of planned reservoirs includes the five reservoirs judged to be far enough along in the permitting process to be included in the anticipated water supply for 2030. These five reservoirs consist of the Hard Labor Creek, Hickory Log Creek, Lake McIntosh, North Oconee, and Tussahaw Creek Reservoirs. The three additional reservoirs included in Table 2-3 may be approved and constructed; however, they are not far enough along in the permitting process to reliably predict their eventual construction. WATER SUPPLY AND WATER CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT PLAN 3-5 DATE: SEPTEMBER 2003 P:\2317-002\TASK 13\FINAL REPORT SEP. 2003\FINAL WORD\SECTION 3 WS- EXISTING SUPPLIES AND TREATMENT FACILITIES.DOC Section 3: Existing Water Supply and Treatment Conditions TABLE 3-3 Planned Reservoirs Reservoir Glades Reservoir Owner/Operator Utilizing Resource Hall County Basin Chattahoochee Hard Labor Creek Reservoir Walton County Water and Sewer Authority Oconee Hickory Log Creek Reservoir City of Canton and Cobb County-Marietta Water Authority Etowah Lake McIntosh Fayette County Water Flint System North Oconee Reservoir Hall County Oconee Still Branch Creek Reservoir Located in Pike County; Flint will provide water to Pike, Spalding, and Coweta counties South Fulton Reservoir Proposed South Fulton Water Authority Chattahoochee Tussahaw Creek Reservoir Henry County Water and Sewerage Authority Ocmulgee Note: Yield is based on reservoir yields from literature where available. Estimated Size and Yield The 733-acre reservoir with an estimated yield of 4.5 MGD will release water to Lake Lanier. The permitting phase has not begun. Estimated yield of 42 MGD (Walton County will receive 28 MGD of the supply; Oconee County 10 MGD; the City of Winder 4 MGD). Currently in the permitting process. A 370-acre impoundment filled from Hickory Log Creek and water pumped from the Etowah River with estimated safe yield of 45 MGD. Currently in permitting process. 650-acre impoundment on Line Creek with an estimated yield of 8 MGD. Currently in permitting process. 140-acre impoundment; estimated yield of 7 MGD. Currently under construction. 476-acre impoundment on tributary of Flint River with estimated yield of 20 MGD. (Coweta County will receive 7.5 MGD of the supply). Currently in the permitting process. Impoundment on Bear Creek, a tributary of the Chattahoochee River. Estimated yield is 10 MGD. 1,500-acre impoundment with an estimated yield of 26 MGD. The permitting stage is nearly complete. Existing Water Treatment Facilities Water supply and treatment are provided for the District by various public water utilities. The structure of these utilities differs across the District; however, the majority are city or countyoperated water and/or sewer utilities. A few third-party utilities exist that provide water for a conglomerate of entities. An example of this is the Cobb County-Marietta Water Authority, which was created by the Georgia legislature to serve as a regional wholesaler of water. This Authority treats and distributes potable water for wholesale purchase by municipalities within Cobb County, as well as in neighboring cities and counties. The District currently has 34 existing publicly owned surface water treatment plants, ranging in capacity from less than 1 MGD up to 150 MGD, providing a combined treatment capacity of 997 MGD. Four additional water treatment plants are planned by year 2005. With expansions to existing water treatment plants, the treatment capacity in the District will be 1,165 MGD by 2005. WATER SUPPLY AND WATER CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT PLAN 3-6 DATE: SEPTEMBER 2003 P:\2317-002\TASK 13\FINAL REPORT SEP. 2003\FINAL WORD\SECTION 3 WS- EXISTING SUPPLIES AND TREATMENT FACILITIES.DOC Section 3: Existing Water Supply and Treatment Conditions The District's 34 surface water treatment plants range in age and condition. Additionally, the source water quality District water treatment plants provide about 650 MGD of potable water on an average day for these treatment plants varies widely. The vast majority of the water treatment plants utilize conventional treatment with chemical coagulation, flocculation, sedimentation, filtration, and disinfection. The finished water from all water treatment plants in the District typically meets current drinking water standards. Some water treatment plants in the District currently utilize or are investigating advanced treatment technologies such as ozonation, ultraviolet (UV) disinfection, and membrane filtration. Regulatory treatment standards continue to become more stringent, requiring treatment plants to continually assess and optimize treatment for continued compliance. As previously stated, groundwater accounts for less than 1 percent of the water supply within the District, and typically only requires disinfection prior to distribution to customers. The City of Lawrenceville owns and operates the only groundwater treatment plant in the District that applies additional treatment for removal of radon, iron, and manganese. Table 3-4 summarizes the existing surface water treatment plants in the District, including capacities. Also included in the tables are water treatment plants planned to be online in 2005, as well as any planned expansions of existing water treatment plants by 2005. Figure 3-2 shows the existing water treatment plants within the District, including those expected to be online in 2005. TABLE 3-4 Existing Surface Water Treatment Plants County WTP Entity Source Stream/Reservoir Bartow Cherokee Clayton Clarence B. Walker WTP Lewis Spring WTP2 Etowah River WTP Canton WTP J.W. Smith WTP W.J. Hooper WTP Freeman Road WTP City of Cartersville City of Adairsville Cherokee County Water and Sewerage Authority City of Canton Clayton County Water Authority Lake Allatoona Lewis Spring2 Yellow Creek Reservoir and Etowah River Etowah River J.W. Smith Reservoir W.J. Hooper Reservoir Blalock Reservoir Existing Permitted WTP Capacity1 (MGD) 27 5.1 18 5.45 12 20 10 New or Expanded 2005 WTP Capacity1 (MGD) - 27 - - WATER SUPPLY AND WATER CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT PLAN 3-7 DATE: SEPTEMBER 2003 P:\2317-002\TASK 13\FINAL REPORT SEP. 2003\FINAL WORD\SECTION 3 WS- EXISTING SUPPLIES AND TREATMENT FACILITIES.DOC Section 3: Existing Water Supply and Treatment Conditions County Cobb Coweta DeKalb Douglas Fayette Forsyth Fulton Gwinnett Hall Henry Henry WTP Entity Source Stream/Reservoir James E. Quarles WTP Hugh A. Wyckoff WTP B.T. Brown WTP3 Hershall Norred WTP Senoia WTP Scott Candler WTP Bear Creek WTP Crosstown WTP South Fayette WTP Fayetteville WTP Cumming WTP Forsyth County WTP East Point WTP Roswell Cecil Wood WTP Hemphill WTP Chattahoochee WTP Atlanta-Fulton County WTP Palmetto WTP Lake Lanier WTP Shoal Creek WTP Buford WTP Lakeside WTP Riverside WTP Cedar Creek WTP3 McDonough WTP Towaliga River WTP Tussahaw WTP3 Cobb CountyMarietta Water Authority Cobb CountyMarietta Water Authority Coweta County City of Newnan City of Senoia DeKalb County Water System DouglasvilleDouglas County Water and Sewer Authority Fayette County Water System City of Fayetteville City of Cumming Forsyth County City of East Point City of Roswell City of Atlanta Atlanta-Fulton County Water Resources Commission City of Palmetto Gwinnett County Public Utilities City of Buford City of Gainesville Hall County Henry County Water and Sewerage Authority Chattahoochee River Lake Allatoona Cedar Creek (B.T. Brown) Reservoir J.T. Haynes Reservoir Hutchins' Lake Chattahoochee River Bear Creek and Dog River Reservoirs Lake Horton (Lake Hutchenson), Lake Kedron, Lake Peachtree, groundwater Whitewater Creek Lake Lanier Lake Lanier Sweetwater Creek Big Creek Chattahoochee River Chattahoochee River Cedar Creek Lake Lanier Lake Lanier Lake Lanier North Oconee Reservoir3 John Fargason (Walnut Creek) Reservoir S. Howell Gardner (Indian Creek) Reservoir Tussahaw Creek Reservoir3 Existing Permitted WTP Capacity1 (MGD) 64 72 NA 12 0.3 128 16 13.5 6.2 3 18 14 12 1 137 65 90 0.6 150 NA 2 10 25 NA 2.4 24 NAP WATER SUPPLY AND WATER CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT PLAN DATE: SEPTEMBER 2003 P:\2317-002\TASK 13\FINAL REPORT SEP. 2003\FINAL WORD\SECTION 3 WS- EXISTING SUPPLIES AND TREATMENT FACILITIES.DOC New or Expanded 2005 WTP Capacity1 (MGD) 87 - 7 150 - - - - - 75 2.5 - - 26 3-8 Section 3: Existing Water Supply and Treatment Conditions Existing New or County WTP Entity Source Stream/Reservoir Permitted WTP Capacity1 Expanded 2005 WTP Capacity1 (MGD) (MGD) Rockdale Big Haynes Creek WTP Rockdale County Big Haynes Creek (Randy Poynter Lake) 22.1 - Monroe WTP Monroe Utilities Network Alcovy River/John T. Briscoe Reservoir 6.4 10 Walton Newton Lake Varner WTP County/Walton Cornish Creek Reservoir (Lake 3.75 - County Varner) Social Circle WTP City of Social Circle Alcovy River 1 - NA = Not Applicable 1WTP capacity is on a maximum daily flow basis. 2Lewis Spring is groundwater under the influence of surface water and therefore classified as a surface WTP. 3Expected to be complete prior to 2005. Existing Interconnections Interconnections with other water systems provide a valuable means of increasing water system reliability. If water systems are interconnected, finished water supply can readily be available in the event of a major water system failure. These connections can function on an emergencyonly basis, as a peaking supply, or they can provide major or sole sources of water supply for some water systems. To identify existing system service area boundaries and interconnections, distribution system maps were obtained from each water supplier within the District, as available, and contact made with the water suppliers to confirm the interconnection information. Adequate interconnection information was obtained from most counties within the District; however, complete and detailed information for all interconnections within the District was not readily available. Figure 3-3 shows the location of existing interconnections among counties, as available from water system maps and conversations with water system staff. Depending on availability of detailed information, some interconnections are mapped as actual locations, whereas others lacking detailed location information are mapped as approximate locations according to the appropriate county line. The accuracy and level of detail of the interconnection information are limited to that provided by the District utility members. All of the counties within the District maintain connections with at least one other county for either routine or emergency water sale. Some of these interconnections originally served as routine supply mains before the water systems were adequately developed. These mains were later kept for emergency uses. WATER SUPPLY AND WATER CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT PLAN 3-9 DATE: SEPTEMBER 2003 P:\2317-002\TASK 13\FINAL REPORT SEP. 2003\FINAL WORD\SECTION 3 WS- EXISTING SUPPLIES AND TREATMENT FACILITIES.DOC Legend = County Boundaries = Lakes = Streams = WTP River Basins = Chattahoochee River Basin = Coosa River Basin = Tallapoosa River Basin = Flint River Basin = Ocmulgee River Basin = Oconee River Basin Coosawattee Subbasin Oostanaula Subbasin COOSA RIVER BASIN CHATTAHOOCHEE RIVER BASIN Hall Adairsville Lewis Spring WTP Gainesville Riverside WTP Bartow Cartersville Clarence B. Walker WTP Cherokee Etowah River WTP Cherokee Etowah Forsyth Gainesville Cumming WTP WTP LAKELakeside WTP Hall Cedar Creek WTP Subbasin LAKE ALLATOONA Canton WTP SIDNEY LANIER Forsyth Buford WTP Gwinnett Shoal Creek WTP Gwinnett Lake Lanier WTP Paulding CCMWA Hugh A. Wyckoff WTP CCMWA James E. Quarles WTP Cobb Roswell Cecil Wood WTP Atlanta-Fulton County WTP DeKalb Gwinnett Scott Candler WTP OCONEE RIVER BASIN TALLAPOOSA RIVER BASIN Douglas DDCWSA Bear Creek WTP Fulton Chattahoochee WTP Atlanta Hemphill WTP DeKalb Walton Monroe WTP Rockdale Big East Point WTP Haynes Creek WTP Rockdale Social Circle WTP Walton Lake Varner WTP Clayton Palmetto WTP Coweta BT Brown WTP Fayetteville WTP Clayton W.J. Hooper WTP Clayton Freeman Road WTP McDonough WTP Newnan Norred WTP Fayette Fayette Crosstown WTP Henry Clayton J.W. Smith WTP Henry Tussahaw WTP Coweta South Fayette WTP Henry Towaliga WTP Senoia WTP FLINT RIVER BASIN OCMULGEE RIVER BASIN Metro trict orgia Wat politan North Ge er Planning Dis 2317_001_Maps_3-2.fh9 Metropolitan North Georgia Water Planning District Existing (through 2005) Water Treatment Plants Date: September 2003 Scale: As Shown Job No.: 2317.001 Figure 3-2 Legend Existing Interconnection Locations = Actual = Approximate = Major Lakes = Major Streams = County Boundaries Major River Basins = Chattahoochee River Basin = Coosa River Basin = Tallapoosa River Basin = Flint River Basin = Ocmulgee River Basin = Oconee River Basin Coosawattee Subbasin COOSA RIVER BASIN Oostanaula Subbasin 001 002 003 CHATTAHOOCHEE RIVER BASIN 062 063 Hall 073 Bartow Etowah Subbasin Cherokee 005 LAKE 004 LAKE SIDNEY LANIER ALLATOONA Forsyth 037 012 013 010 007 069 068 021 034 064 014 011 009 008 020 071 070 022 058 OCONEE RIVER BASIN 061 Paulding 015 016 Cobb 017 023 052 Gwinnett 025 078 072 TALLAPOOSA RIVER BASIN Douglas 018 019 055 043 DeKalb 053 042 051 029 046 024 Walton 060 074 059 054 Rockdale 075 Fulton 044 047 031 045 048 033 Clayton 040 077 076 032 057 030 041 066 035 050 056 038 Henry 065 Fayette 039 Coweta 067 049 FLINT RIVER BASIN OCMULGEE RIVER BASIN Metro trict orgia Wat politan North Ge er Planning Dis 2317_001_Fig3-3_Countys.fh9 Metropolitan North Georgia Water Planning District Existing County Interconnection Locations Date: September 2003 Scale: As Shown Job No.: 2317.001 Figure 3-3 Section 4 Water Demand Projections Future water supply needs for the District were projected based upon various growth scenarios and levels of water conservation. Population and employment projections were developed for each of the 16 counties in a range spanning "moderate" to "high" growth. Using the growth scenarios, a range of water demand projections was prepared for each county using a computer model that relates current water use to predicted future conditions and water conservation possibilities. Current conservation efforts and plumbing codes are projected to provide a savings of up to 9 percent by 2030. Additional water conservation measures were predicted to reduce total future demands by as much as an additional 11 percent during the planning horizon. To conservatively plan for District water supplies, the Water Supply and Water Conservation Management Plan (WS Plan) addresses high growth needs. Under the high-growth scenario, the District population could double in 30 years, reaching nearly 8 million. Water supply demands could also double, reaching more than 1.3 billion gallons per day, based upon this high level of growth and the current patterns of water use in the District. However, the WS Plan recognizes the constrained water supplies available to the District, and the need to reduce water use where most practical and effective. Therefore, the WS Plan applies an aggressive approach to water conservation to reduce future average per capita use as much as 11 percent below today's levels, in addition to the 9 percent reduction expected from Georgia plumbing codes. Assuming immediate implementation of the recommended water conservation program (described in Section 8), total water demands for the District are projected to reach nearly 1.1 billion gallons per day by 2030. This is an increase of approximately 400 million gallons per day from today's use (approximately 650 million gallons per day). If successfully applied, the recommended water conservation measures could save more than 150 million gallons per day by the year 2030. This section documents the methodology used to develop projections for population, employment, water demands, and water conservation. Additional information about the development of water conservation recommendations is in Section 5. The water demand projections depended heavily upon water production and customer account data made available by the local water utilities. The water conservation analysis applied the most current information on water-saving technologies and conservation experience from other water constrained areas of the United States. A computer model (Demand Side Management Least WATER SUPPLY AND WATER CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT PLAN 4-1 DATE: SEPTEMBER 2003 P:\2317-002\TASK 13\FINAL REPORT SEP. 2003\FINAL WORD\SECTION 4 WS- WATER DEMAND PROJECTIONS.DOC Section 4: Water Demand Projections Cost Planning Decision Support System, or DSS) was used to calibrate each county's specific conditions, evaluate various water conservation measures, and predict future demand reductions. Figure 4-1 shows the District water demand projection, and the potential to reduce the demand through the use of conservation. FIGURE 4-1 Baseline Water Demand Projections and Water Conservation (AADD) Population and Employment Projections Official Regional Development Commission (RDC)-derived population and employment projections for counties in the District were not available. Therefore, to meet the mandated District planning deadline of May 2003, interim projections were developed to enable preparation of the WS Plan. The population and employment projections were derived using data and information available within the limitations of the District's planning schedule and budget. The projections incorporated well-informed judgments about local conditions, historic trends and regional growth patterns. The projections were used only as a tool for the initial planning process and will be updated regularly in District WS Plan updates (every 5 years). The Atlanta Regional Commission (ARC) and other RDCs were given the opportunity to review and advise on the projection methodology and results. Refinements and adjustments of projections were made based upon this feedback. WATER SUPPLY AND WATER CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT PLAN 4-2 DATE: SEPTEMBER 2003 P:\2317-002\TASK 13\FINAL REPORT SEP. 2003\FINAL WORD\SECTION 4 WS- WATER DEMAND PROJECTIONS.DOC Section 4: Water Demand Projections Population Projection Methodology The projection methodology was based on computing the District's "share" of the United States' population as projected to the year 2030 by Woods and Poole, a national demographicforecasting firm. The District population totals were split among the 16 counties based upon historical data and growth trends. The county projections were adjusted to reflect current population densities for developed land within the county, and future land use shown in the county's comprehensive plan. The following summarizes the steps used to develop the "moderate growth" population projections for each county in the District. Figure 4-2 shows this process graphically. 1. Calculate the District's share of U.S. population for 2010, 2020, and 2030, based on linear regression of the District's historical share of U.S. population from 1950-2000 census data. 2. Apply share of U.S. population to the Woods and Poole national population projections for 2010, 2020 and 2030 to get District projections for 2010, 2020, and 2030. 3. Compute each county's share of the District's population for 2010, 2020, and 2030, based on linear regression of each county's historical share of District population from 1950-2000 census data. 4. Compare each county's projected share of the total District population to the county's land use and existing development densities. An "upper bound" was calculated by first determining the density of population on developable land. This was done using the 2000 census population and the year 2000 land use information. Land use information was provided by the ARC for thirteen of the sixteen counties, and through Comprehensive Land Use Plans for Bartow, Hall, and Walton Counties. 5. Shift projected population from counties that exceeded the upper bounds to lessdeveloped counties in the District. Based on input received from ARC and the other RDCs, final adjustments were made to the projections. A range of projections was presented to represent two growth scenarios: Moderate growth; and High growth (15 percent above moderate). WATER SUPPLY AND WATER CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT PLAN 4-3 DATE: SEPTEMBER 2003 P:\2317-002\TASK 13\FINAL REPORT SEP. 2003\FINAL WORD\SECTION 4 WS- WATER DEMAND PROJECTIONS.DOC Section 4: Water Demand Projections FIGURE 4-2 Population Projection Methodology Employment Projection Methodology Employment projections were developed by applying a ratio of employment to population to the population projections. The ratios of employment to population for each county were developed based on previous ARC population and employment forecasts for 13 of the 16 counties. The ratio of county employment to population was derived from the 2000 census. The ratio of total county employment to total county population was applied within each census tract to distribute jobs in these three counties. For Bartow, Hall and Walton counties, the rate of growth for employment was based on the rate of growth of population in each county. Tables 4-1 and 4-2 show the projected population and employment for 2030 for each county and basin, respectively, under both the moderate and high growth projections. However, for conservative planning purposes, the high growth projections were used for the analysis in this WS Plan. WATER SUPPLY AND WATER CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT PLAN 4-4 DATE: SEPTEMBER 2003 P:\2317-002\TASK 13\FINAL REPORT SEP. 2003\FINAL WORD\SECTION 4 WS- WATER DEMAND PROJECTIONS.DOC Section 4: Water Demand Projections TABLE 4-1 Population and Employment Projections by County County Bartow Cherokee Clayton Cobb Coweta DeKalb Douglas Fayette Forsyth Fulton Gwinnett Hall Henry Paulding Rockdale Walton 20001 76,019 141,903 236,517 607,751 89,215 665,865 92,174 91,263 98,407 816,006 588,448 139,277 119,341 81,678 70,111 60,687 District Total 3,974,662 1 2000 Census Data Population 2030 Projections (Range) 267,000 to 307,100 346,800 to 398,800 326,700 to 375,700 801,000 to 921,200 201,800 to 232,100 923,200 to 1,061,700 199,700 to 229,700 184,600 to 212,300 303,900 to 349,500 1,152,800 to 1,325,700 1,004,300 to 1,154,900 279,300 to 321,200 263,300 to 302,800 221,600 to 254,800 171,000 to 196,700 162,500 to 186,900 6,809,500 to 7,830,900 20001 35,330 37,575 142,538 322,365 27,947 385,864 33,462 34,457 38,688 725,932 305,686 90,236 34,546 11,556 37,963 18,903 2,283,047 Employment 2030 Projections (Range) 133,900 to 154,000 137,000 to 157,600 209,400 to 240,800 485,500 to 558,300 96,500 to 111,000 535,000 to 615,300 68,900 to 79,200 57,900 to 66,600 140,100 to 161,100 1,130,200 to 1,299,700 613,800 to 706,000 157,900 to 181,600 77,200 to 88,800 39,000 to 44,900 87,300 to 100,400 47,900 to 55,100 4,007,500 to 4,620,200 TABLE 4-2 Population and Employment Projections by Basin County 20001 Chattahoochee 1,852,065 Etowah 466,919 Flint 348,352 Ocmulgee 1,218,209 Oconee 89,117 District Total 3,974,662 1 2000 Census Data Population 2030 Projections (Range) 2,933,200 to 3,373,200 1,047,600 to 1,204,700 578,000 to 664,700 2,041,400 to 2,347,600 209,300 to 240,700 6,809,500 to 7,830,900 20001 1,419,918 168,290 191,982 485,249 17,609 2,283,047 Employment 2030 Projections (Range) 2,283,300 to 2,625,800 460,700 to 529,800 306,700 to 352,700 905,500 to 1,041,300 61,300 to 70,500 4,007,500 to 4,620,200 Data Collected and Used Data required for the DSS model was solicited from the water providers in the District. This data included water withdrawal and production data, as well as customer billing data by category. This data was analyzed for input to the model. WATER SUPPLY AND WATER CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT PLAN 4-5 DATE: SEPTEMBER 2003 P:\2317-002\TASK 13\FINAL REPORT SEP. 2003\FINAL WORD\SECTION 4 WS- WATER DEMAND PROJECTIONS.DOC Section 4: Water Demand Projections Unaccounted-for-water (UFW) is defined as water that is withdrawn from the water source, but not accounted for through customer meters. The losses can result from water used in the treatment process, in the distribution system leaks, and unbilled water use. Based on withdrawal and production records, an average loss percentage was determined for losses in the treatment process. Losses in the distribution system were determined from production and sales records, as well as from the water conservation plans on file with EPD. Figure 4-3 shows the process by which water travels from the source to the end use. FIGURE 4-3 Water Demand Calculation Table 4-3 summarizes the withdrawn water, as well as losses for each county. Figure 4-4 shows the current water withdrawal data for each county in the District, with components of use by residential, non-residential, and UFW, based on an annual average daily demand (AADD). Figure 4-5 shows the same components of water use, on a District-wide basis. TABLE 4-3 County Water Withdrawal and Losses County Bartow Cherokee Clayton Cobb Coweta DeKalb Douglas Fayette Forsyth Fulton Gwinnett Hall Henry Paulding Rockdale Walton District 2001 Water Withdrawal (MGD) 20 18 32 85 13 97 11 13 16 186 90 26 18 8 11 9 652 2001 UFW MGD % 5 25% 4 20% 4 13% 17 20% 2 18% 19 20% 2 17% 2 12% 3 20% 32 17% 16 18% 5 20% 4 21% 1 15% 2 20% 2 18% 120 18% WATER SUPPLY AND WATER CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT PLAN 4-6 DATE: SEPTEMBER 2003 P:\2317-002\TASK 13\FINAL REPORT SEP. 2003\FINAL WORD\SECTION 4 WS- WATER DEMAND PROJECTIONS.DOC Section 4: Water Demand Projections FIGURE 4-4 2001 Water Withdrawal by County (AADD) FIGURE 4-5 2001 District Water Withdrawal and Water Use by Type (AADD) Monthly Operating Reports were obtained from EPD for each water treatment plant in the District to determine a District-wide peaking factor. The average peaking factor was calculated to be 1.6, and was used for the sizing of required future water treatment facilities. Figure 4-6 shows the current water use profile of water use for the District. Single Family Residential use is split to show the end uses in this category. WATER SUPPLY AND WATER CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT PLAN 4-7 DATE: SEPTEMBER 2003 P:\2317-002\TASK 13\FINAL REPORT SEP. 2003\FINAL WORD\SECTION 4 WS- WATER DEMAND PROJECTIONS.DOC Section 4: Water Demand Projections FIGURE 4-6 District Water Use Profile (AADD) Figure 4-7 compares the amount of outdoor and indoor residential water use in the District. Monthly billing data was collected from the water providers, by customer class. Analysis of the data provided insight into the composition of indoor and outdoor use (Figure 4-7), as well as typical account usage rates for each category of user. FIGURE 4-7 2001 District Residential Water Use (AADD) Figure 4-8 shows a monthly historical water use pattern for one county for all Residential Single Family customers, on a monthly basis. Note the fluctuation due to increased water use in the summer months, as compared to the 12-month moving average also shown on the figure. WATER SUPPLY AND WATER CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT PLAN 4-8 DATE: SEPTEMBER 2003 P:\2317-002\TASK 13\FINAL REPORT SEP. 2003\FINAL WORD\SECTION 4 WS- WATER DEMAND PROJECTIONS.DOC Section 4: Water Demand Projections FIGURE 4-8 Historical Residential Single Family Water Use for One County Methods of Analysis and Projection The base year for the water use projection was 2001. However, EPD-imposed outdoor water restrictions in effect in 2001 depressed the normal use rates. In order to create a representative base year for projections, the water use rates in 1999 for each customer class, as reported by the water providers, were used in conjunction with the number of accounts per customer category in 2001. This created an adjusted base year water use profile. There is not a standard billing category system in place in the District, so common categories were used across the District for comparative purposes. The categories were as follows: Single family residential Multi family residential Commercial Industrial Institutional Other categories were used where necessary due to each county's specific characteristics. Based on data from water providers, use within these categories was derived or estimated. The county-level DSS models were calibrated using a top-down, bottom-up approach. (See Figure 4-9 for a graphical representation of the method.) This top-down portion of the procedure involves estimating the amount of water used in each customer category for each end use. For example, the water used by a single family account is split into indoor and outdoor use, then into the individual indoor and outdoor uses. WATER SUPPLY AND WATER CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT PLAN 4-9 DATE: SEPTEMBER 2003 P:\2317-002\TASK 13\FINAL REPORT SEP. 2003\FINAL WORD\SECTION 4 WS- WATER DEMAND PROJECTIONS.DOC Section 4: Water Demand Projections FIGURE 4-9 Water Use Model Methodology WATER SUPPLY AND WATER CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT PLAN DATE: SEPTEMBER 2003 P:\2317-002\TASK 13\FINAL REPORT SEP. 2003\FINAL WORD\SECTION 4 WS- WATER DEMAND PROJECTIONS.DOC 4-10 Section 4: Water Demand Projections The bottom-up procedure uses demographic information specific to each county, along with data about fixture use frequency. 2000 Census data was the source of the demographics information, which included details about the age of the housing stock. Initial estimates of amounts of the different types of plumbing fixtures were developed from the housing stock profiles. Other demographic information used was typical household sizes, as well as the number of dwelling units, by type. The American Water Works Association Research Foundation (AWWARF) study, "Residential End Uses of Water" provided the initial estimates for fixture use frequencies and quantities. The bottom-up end uses were estimated, and compared to the estimates made from the topdown procedure. Then the top-down and bottom-up were adjusted until they matched to assure calibration of the model. Table 4-4 shows the average water end uses and frequency of use factors for a single family account, based on the AWWARF study. TABLE 4-4 AWWARF Single Family Water End Uses End Use Share Gallons Per Person Per Day Average Uses Per Person Per Day Toilets 26.7% 18.5 5.05 flushes Clothes Washers 21.7% 15.0 0.37 loads Shower 16.8% 11.6 0.75 showers and baths Faucet 15.7% 10.9 8.1 minutes Leaks 13.7% 9.5 Other Domestic 2.2% 1.5 Bath 1.7% 1.2 Dishwasher 1.4% 1.0 0.1 loads Indoor Total 100% 69.3 Source: "Residential End Uses of Water," Mayer, AWWARF, 1999. All water demand projections were developed to include the effects of existing conservation, or naturally occurring conservation. This naturally occurring conservation assumes: Georgia plumbing standards in all new construction and replacement o Toilets not to exceed 1.6 gallons per flush o Urinals not to exceed 1.0 gallons per flush o 2.5 gallon per minute showerheads o 2.2 gallon per minute faucet aerators Natural replacement rates o Toilets and Urinals = 2 percent per year o Showerheads = 5 percent per year o Washing Machines = 6 percent per year Until 2004, 1 out of 17 replacements will be efficient From 2004 to 2007, 1 out of 4 replacements will be efficient From 2007 to 2020, 1 out of 2 replacements will be efficient Beyond 2020, every replacement will be efficient WATER SUPPLY AND WATER CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT PLAN DATE: SEPTEMBER 2003 P:\2317-002\TASK 13\FINAL REPORT SEP. 2003\FINAL WORD\SECTION 4 WS- WATER DEMAND PROJECTIONS.DOC 4-11 Total System Use1 Total Consumption Indoor Outdoor % Outdoor Total Indoor Outdoor5 % Outdoor Total Indoor Outdoor4 % Outdoor Total Indoor Seasonal6 % Seasonal Section 4: Water Demand Projections Specific water savings resulting from naturally existing conservation depend on the current share of low, medium, and high flow fixtures in existing dwellings and businesses. Existing Water Use by County Water use is typically expressed in gallons per capita per day (gpcd) or gallons per employee per day (gped). Table 4-5 shows the existing per capita and per employee uses for residential single and multi family, as well as all other non residential uses, including indoor and outdoor use. TABLE 4-5 Existing Per Capita Use by County (AADD) Overall2 (gpcd) Single Family Residential3 (gpcd) Multi Family Residential3 (gpcd) Non Residential3 (gped) County Bartow 254 190 156 34 18 83 64 19 23 69 61 8 12 225 191 34 15 Cherokee 122 97 74 24 24 77 60 18 23 69 59 10 15 126 102 24 19 Clayton 133 116 98 18 16 81 67 14 17 77 66 12 15 70 51 18 26 Cobb 139 111 83 28 25 86 66 20 23 68 61 7 10 61 33 28 46 Coweta 146 120 99 21 17 83 66 17 20 64 58 6 10 103 83 21 20 DeKalb 150 120 98 22 19 94 73 22 23 87 66 22 25 101 86 15 15 Douglas 118 98 79 19 19 79 64 15 19 62 56 6 10 65 46 19 29 Fayette Forsyth4 137 121 95 25 21 82 65 17 21 69 62 7 10 97 72 25 26 157 126 91 35 27 94 66 28 30 NA NA NA NA 90 56 35 38 Fulton 215 178 144 35 19 103 77 27 26 80 71 10 12 116 82 35 30 Gwinnett 149 122 92 30 24 84 65 18 22 68 61 7 10 63 33 30 47 Hall 182 145 114 31 21 87 67 20 23 73 63 10 14 151 120 31 21 Henry 146 115 92 24 21 77 62 15 20 69 59 10 15 91 68 24 26 Paulding 95 81 67 14 17 76 63 13 17 69 62 7 10 42 28 14 33 Rockdale 158 127 103 24 19 78 64 14 18 69 62 7 10 87 63 24 28 Walton 140 115 88 27 23 84 63 21 25 69 60 9 13 82 56 27 32 Weighted Average7 168 137 109 28 21 91 70 21 23 75 65 11 14 97 70 27 31 1 Total per capita use, including unaccounted-for-water 2 Includes self-supplied 3 Publicly supplied, based on sales 4 Includes multi family in single family calculations 5 Outdoor use is defined as all use above the winter minimum level 6 Seasonal use is all water use above the winter minimum level 7 Weighted average based on withdrawal in 2001 AADD, Annual Average Daily Demand WATER SUPPLY AND WATER CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT PLAN DATE: SEPTEMBER 2003 P:\2317-002\TASK 13\FINAL REPORT SEP. 2003\FINAL WORD\SECTION 4 WS- WATER DEMAND PROJECTIONS.DOC 4-12 Section 4: Water Demand Projections Baseline Projections with Existing Conservation Some amount of water conservation is currently practiced within all 16 counties in the District. All counties have been subjected to the drought restrictions instituted by EPD, and all counties are affected by the state plumbing code requiring low-flow fixtures in new construction since 1992. For planning purposes, baseline projections were derived to compare the current water use rates and the reductions from the plumbing code over time. The effect of the existing plumbing code and continuation of existing conservation practices is projected to reduce future demands by 9% in 2030. This level of conservation has been termed "natural conservation" and is graphed in Figure 4-10. The resulting projected demands are considered "baseline" and are used to compare to additional reductions that could be obtained from increased, aggressive water conservation. FIGURE 4-10 Water Use Projection With and Without Natural Conservation (AADD) Using the baseline level of water conservation, the DSS model was used to produce a range of projections for water use in each county in the District, under the moderate and high growth scenarios. The projected baseline water use projected for each county and basin in 2030 are shown as a range, in Table 4-6 and Table 4-7, respectively. WATER SUPPLY AND WATER CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT PLAN DATE: SEPTEMBER 2003 P:\2317-002\TASK 13\FINAL REPORT SEP. 2003\FINAL WORD\SECTION 4 WS- WATER DEMAND PROJECTIONS.DOC 4-13 TABLE 4-6 Baseline Water Use Projection by County (MGD, AADD) County Bartow Cherokee Clayton Cobb Coweta DeKalb Douglas Fayette Forsyth Fulton Gwinnett Hall Henry Paulding Rockdale Walton District Total 2001 20 18 32 85 13 97 11 13 16 186 90 26 18 8 11 9 652 2030 Projections (Range) 47 to 54 40 to 46 40 to 46 113 to 130 27 to 31 129 to 148 23 to 26 23 to 27 56 to 65 244 to 281 160 to 183 48 to 55 40 to 46 25 to 29 25 to 29 19 to 21 1,058 to 1,217 TABLE 4-7 Baseline Water Use Projection by Basin (MGD, AADD) County Chattahoochee Etowah Flint Ocmulgee Oconee District Total 2001 342 72 53 175 12 652 2030 Projections (Range) 522 to 600 147 to 170 78 to 89 285 to 328 26 to 30 1,058 to 1,217 Section 4: Water Demand Projections Final Projected Water Demands with Future Conservation These baseline water demands were further reduced through the use of additional water conservation measures. The analysis and selection of the recommended water conservation program is described in Section 5 of the WS Plan. The projected 2030 baseline demands have the potential to be reduced by 11 percent through aggressive water conservation. Table 4-8 shows the projected water demands by county using the high-growth projections. The highgrowth water demands are conservative in terms of providing some contingency in case growth exceeds the baseline estimates. Therefore, they were used in the remainder of the WS Plan for determination of water supply and facility. WATER SUPPLY AND WATER CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT PLAN DATE: SEPTEMBER 2003 P:\2317-002\TASK 13\FINAL REPORT SEP. 2003\FINAL WORD\SECTION 4 WS- WATER DEMAND PROJECTIONS.DOC 4-14 Section 4: Water Demand Projections TABLE 4-8 Final 2030 Water Use Projections by County With Aggressive Conservation 2030 Water Demand Projection (MGD) County After Conservation Plan Bartow 43 Cherokee 40 Clayton 42 Cobb 113 Coweta 29 DeKalb 128 Douglas 24 Fayette 25 Forsyth 57 Fulton 254 Gwinnett 165 Hall 49 Henry 41 Paulding 27 Rockdale 25 Walton 19 Total 1,081 Notes: Does not include consumptive use by Georgia Power. These figures are water withdrawals. These water uses reflect jurisdictions in which water is used, not cross-jurisdictional uses. These water uses include self-supplied water users. The following Exhibit describes the water allocation strategy approved by the District Board for inclusion in this plan. WATER SUPPLY AND WATER CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT PLAN DATE: SEPTEMBER 2003 P:\2317-002\TASK 13\FINAL REPORT SEP. 2003\FINAL WORD\SECTION 4 WS- WATER DEMAND PROJECTIONS.DOC 4-15 Exhibit: Water Needs Beyond 2030 At the District Board meeting held on April 3, 2003, a number of the Board members expressed concern that the scope of work for the Water Supply and Water Conservation Plan did not include a provision to deal with how the water needs of the 16 counties would be addressed beyond 2030. In particular, some of the Board members were concerned that if the faster growing counties are allocated water on a `first come-first served' basis, the more slowly developing counties would not have sufficient water available to allow for their complete development beyond 2030. As a consequence, the Board members requested that the District staff consider an approach for dealing with the water needs beyond 2030, especially to allocate the need between the 16 counties in an equitable manner. District staff developed this approach and a proposed water needs allocation was presented at the District Board meeting held on May 8, 2003. The District Board approved a motion to include in this Plan the Water Allocation Table presented at the meeting with an explanation of the underlying philosophy. Furthermore, the motion unanimously passed by the Board members required that the water needs beyond 2030 should also be considered, when this Plan is updated each 5 years. This Exhibit has been developed separately to the scope of work for this plan to further explain the approach and its underlying philosophy and the proposed allocation for each county. Any loss or gain in the total water supply, particularly related to the Critical Strategies mentioned below, would adjust the allocation using this same philosophy. As specified in Senate Bill 130, the Georgia Environmental Protection Division (EPD) was authorized to develop planning standards related to the plans to be prepared by the District. These standards were established by EPD and provided to the District in late 2001. The legislation specifically provides that prior to approval of the plans by the District Board, the Director of EPD must certify that the plans meet the EPD established planning standards. This Water Supply and Water Conservation Plan demonstrates that 1,267 million gallons per day (MGD) of water supply can be available for use within the District based on a series of future approvals (Critical Strategies). The Plan further outlines the source from each river basin that makes up the supply for the District. In addition, the Plan identifies the specific critical strategies that are necessary to ensure optimum availability of water supply. Ex-4A sets forth the quantities of water related to specific sources or measures to be implemented; these include: WATER SUPPLY AND WATER CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT PLAN DATE: SEPTEMBER 2003 P:\2317-002\TASK 13\FINAL REPORT SEP. 2003\FINAL WORD\SECTION 4 WS- WATER DEMAND PROJECTIONS.DOC 4-16 Section 4: Water Demand Projections Ex-4A Added Water Supply or Reduced Demand for 2030 from Critical Strategies Type of New Source Reallocation Lake Lanier and Lake Allatoona Added Conservation Measures New Reservoirs1 Water Reclamation through Indirect Potable Reuse2 Resource Sharing/System Connections3 Amount (AADD-MGD) 153 136 114 67 42 1 New reservoirs included are Hickory Log Creek (45 AADD-MGD), Cedar Creek (7 AADD-MGD), Hard Labor Creek (28 AADD-MGD for District Use), Tussahaw (26 AADD-MGD), Lake McIntosh (8 AADD-MGD). Other new reservoirs are acceptable within the WS Plan, but among-currently planned reservoirs these are furthest along in the permitting process and are considered most likely to be constructed. 2 Indirect Potable Reuse is calculated as the amount of reclaimed water discharged to Lake Lanier (117 AADD-MGD) minus the amount anticipated in current yield estimates for the Lake (50 AADD-MGD). Reclaimed water contributions from various jurisdictions are described in the Long-term Wastewater Management Plan. 3 Resource sharing and system connections do not create additional water supply, but by distributing water to meet local needs, these measures remove the need to create new sources such as new reservoirs. Planned sharing arrangements include Cobb CountyMarietta Water Authority to Fulton County (33 AADD-MGD) and City of Atlanta to Coweta County (9 AADD-MGD). EPD has repeatedly emphasized that the future permits issued to the 16 counties must be consistent with the Plan as well as be fair and equitable. EPD has further declared that permits will not be issued in the next few years that commit the final 2030 planned allocation to a county. The EPD permit will be based on the water needs of a county for a period of time short of 2030. Through this "step" approach, EPD and the District Board will use the 5-year review of the plans, required by the legislation, to determine if the "Critical Strategies" are being implemented and any modification justified in the allocation process. The EPD planning standards include a requirement that the District's plan address the allocation of the available supply of water. In order to demonstrate that the 1,267 MGD will meet the water needs of the District, the land use plans for each county were assumed to be fully developed by 2030. This assumption resulted in a projected water demand for the District of 1,189 MGD. This leaves 78 MGD as a reserve after the future projected water needs are fully met. It is the intent of this Plan to preserve water needs for the slower developing counties beyond 2030 as reflected in the Water Allocation Table, Ex-4B. The Water Allocation Strategy establishes a percentage of the total water available for each county and is reflected in the following table: WATER SUPPLY AND WATER CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT PLAN DATE: SEPTEMBER 2003 P:\2317-002\TASK 13\FINAL REPORT SEP. 2003\FINAL WORD\SECTION 4 WS- WATER DEMAND PROJECTIONS.DOC 4-17 Section 4: Water Demand Projections Ex-4B Water Allocation Table1, 2 County Coweta Bartow Walton Henry Cherokee Douglas Fayette Paulding Hall Rockdale Clayton Cobb DeKalb Forsyth Fulton Gwinnett Allocated State Reserve Total 2030 Water Needs With Conservation (AADD-MGD) 29 43 19 41 40 24 25 27 49 25 42 113 128 57 254 165 1,081 Additional Needs (AADD-MGD) 31 24 25 10 5 5 5 3 - 108 Allocation (AADD-MGD) 60 67 44 51 45 29 30 30 49 25 42 113 128 57 254 165 1,189 78 1,267 % of Total 5.03 % 5.64 % 3.67 % 4.27 % 3.79 % 2.47 % 2.50 % 2.56 % 4.12 % 2.10 % 3.53 % 9.50 % 10.77 % 4.79 % 21.36 % 13.88 % 100.00 % Assumptions: 1 Critical Strategies are implemented and supply of 1,267 MGD is available 2 EPD will allocate within the identified quantities and manage the reserve quantities over the years consistent with plan. As EPD administers the allocation through the permit process, all future withdrawal/discharge permit applications must describe the impact that a particular permit has on that county's allocation to projected build-out. Similarly, the impacts related to allocations among the counties within the District must be evaluated by EPD and be consistent with both the adopted Water Allocation Strategy and the implementation of the Plan's Critical Strategies. This Water Allocation Strategy will be reviewed every 5 years, when the Plan is reviewed. WATER SUPPLY AND WATER CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT PLAN DATE: SEPTEMBER 2003 P:\2317-002\TASK 13\FINAL REPORT SEP. 2003\FINAL WORD\SECTION 4 WS- WATER DEMAND PROJECTIONS.DOC 4-18 Section 5 Water Conservation Analysis This section summarizes existing water conservation practices in the District, and describes the water conservation measure selection process used in the WS Plan. The selection process, which included significant stakeholder involvement, yielded a program of water conservation measures that has the potential to reduce District water demand by up to 11 percent by the end of the planning period. Existing Water Conservation Plans and Programs Water conservation is practiced at varying degrees by all utilities in the District. Each utility is required to submit a Water Conservation Plan (WCP) upon the application for a new, modified, or renewal water withdrawal permit. Table 5-1 summarizes conservation programs implemented by water withdrawal permit holders in the District. Information presented in this summary represents data collected from District water utilities and WCPs on file at EPD. TABLE 5-1a Summary of the Existing District Water Conservation Plans County Bartow Clayton Cherokee Entity Bartow County City of Cartersville City of Riverdale Clayton County Cherokee County City of Ball Ground City of Canton Lake Arrowhead Year 2001 2001 1995 2000 1999 2001 1995 NA Percent UFW 22.7% 8.9%c 3.0% 10.0%c 16.8% 25.0% 12.0% NA Water Rate Typeb gpm Uniform Uniform Uniform (3000 ), Inclining Block (>3000) Uniform, Base Uniform (10,000), Inclining Block (>10,000) Uniform Declining Block Uniform ( 5000), Inclining Block (>5000) Other Conservation Programs XeriscapeTMTM School Education WTP Tours WTP Tours XeriscapeTM NA WTP Tours School Education Public Information School Education Support WaterSmart WTP Tours Public Information NA NA Education XeriscapeTM Conservation Pricing Structure NA Rate study underway NA NA Summer surcharge (30% over winter average applied to wholesale customers) NA Considering summer surcharge pricing NA WATER SUPPLY AND WATER CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT PLAN 5-1 DATE: SEPTEMBER 2003 P:\2317-002\Task 13\Final Report Sep. 2003\Final Word\Section 5 WS- Water Conservation Analysis.doc Section 5: Water Conservation Analysis County Cobb Coweta DeKalb Douglas Fayette Forsyth Entity City of Waleska City of Woodstock City of Holly Springs City of Austell City of Smyrna City of Powder Springs City of Marietta City of Kennesaw Cobb County-Marietta Water Authority (CCMWA) Cobb County City of Newnan City of Senoia Coweta County DeKalb County Douglasville-Douglas County Fayette County City of Fayetteville City of Brooks City of Cumming Forsyth County Year 1995 NA 1996 2000 NA NA Percent UFW 16.0% NA NA Water Rate Typeb gpm Uniform (2000), Declining Block (>2000) Uniform ( 1000), Inclining Block (>1000) Uniform ( 2000), Inclining Block (>2000) 11.1%c Uniform NA Uniform NA Uniform Other Conservation Programs NA NA NA NA NA NA Conservation Pricing Structure NA NA NA Summer surcharge (25% surcharge for use over winter average) Summer surcharge (25% surcharge for use over winter average) NA 1995 13.0% NA NA Uniform Uniform 2000 3.0% Uniform 1995 13.00% 1994 2001 2000 2000 8.8% 3.0% 1.021%f 14.8% 1999/ 2000 9.3% 2001 2001 2001 11.3%c 9.0%c NA 1997 18.1% Uniform Declining Block Base, Uniform Inclining Block Uniform Uniform Base ( 2000), Uniform (>2000) Base ( 2000), Uniform (>2000) Inclining Block Uniform 2000 8.2%c Uniform NA NA WaterSmart Campaign School Education NA School Education NA School Education XeriscapeTM School Education XeriscapeTM Public Education School Education XeriscapeTM Public Education School Education WTP Tours NA XeriscapeTM; WTP Tours Public, School Education School Education Public Education NA Summer surcharge (30% surcharge for use over winter average) Summer surcharge (based on average water use May- September that exceeds 130%) Summer surcharge (25% surcharge for use over winter average) NA NA NA NA Surcharge rate applied for use greater than specified amount based on meter size. NA NA NA NA NA WATER SUPPLY AND WATER CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT PLAN 5-2 DATE: SEPTEMBER 2003 P:\2317-002\Task 13\Final Report Sep. 2003\Final Word\Section 5 WS- Water Conservation Analysis.doc Section 5: Water Conservation Analysis County Fulton Gwinnett Entity City of Atlanta City of East Point Union City City of Roswell City of Palmetto City of Mountain Park City of Hapeville City of Fairburn City of College Park Fulton County City of Alpharetta City of Buford Gwinnett County City of Suwanee City of Norcross Year 2000 1996 1996 2000 2001 2001 NA NA 1996 2001 NA 2000 1999 NA 1995 Percent Water Rate Typeb UFW gpm 14.3% Uniform NA 3.0% 12.0% 14.2%c 9.8% NA NA 11.0% Inclining Block Base rate based on meter size and uniform rate based on water use Base ( 4500), Uniform (>4500), Cons. Rate (>24,000 for 2 months, 50% surcharge) Base ( 2000), Uniform (>2000) Base, Uniform Base ( 2000), Declining Block (>2000) Declining Block Base ( 3000), Uniform (>3000) 10.0% Uniform NA 13.5% 16.4% NA 6.0% NA Base ( 4000), Uniform (> 4000) Uniform Base ( 3000), Inclining Block(>3000) Uniform Other Conservation Programs XeriscapeTM Care and Conserve (low income residents) Low Flow Fixtures Distribution School Education Public Education Videos/PSA's Leak Repair Multi-family owner training Newsletter NA Public Education XeriscapeTM, Enforcement Team NA Newsletter Newsletter NA NA XeriscapeTM Public Education Bill Inserts Website Publications School Education NA XeriscapeTM School Education NA NA Conservation Pricing Structure NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Summer Surcharge NA NA City of Lawrenceville 1996 16.0% Uniform Hall City of Gainesville 1999 13.9% Base, Uniform Hall County 1999 80.8%d Base, Uniform WATER SUPPLY AND WATER CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT PLAN DATE: SEPTEMBER 2003 P:\2317-002\Task 13\Final Report Sep. 2003\Final Word\Section 5 WS- Water Conservation Analysis.doc NA WTP Tours School Education Public Education Tied to Gainesville programs NA NA NA 5-3 Section 5: Water Conservation Analysis County Henry Paulding Rockdale Entity Henry County City of Stockbridge City of Locust Grove City of Hampton City of McDonough Paulding County Rockdale County Year 1998 NA 1995 NA 2001 2001 1998 Percent UFW 23.8% NA NA NA 14.3%e 14% 17.0% Water Rate Typeb gpm Declining Block Declining Block Base ( 2000), Inclining Block(>2000) Base ( 3000), Uniform (>3000) NA Base ( 2000), Uniform (>2000) Inclining Block Other Conservation Programs WTP Tours School Education Public Information Recycle Water at Public Pools Pamphlets NA NA NA NA XeriscapeTM NA Conservation Pricing Structure NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Walton County NA NA NA NA NA Public Education Walton City of Monroe 2000 16.2% Declining Block XeriscapeTM NA Bill Inserts City of Social Circle 2001 13.0% Base ( 2000), Uniform (>2000) NA NA Notes: NA = Data not available MGD=million gallons per day UFW=unaccounted-for-water WTP=water treatment plant a Data taken from water conservation plans and literature review b Rate-Making Policies - water providers use several rate structures for customer billing c UFW calculated from billing data, or reported in water conservation plans d Line flushing and construction testing are done frequently on this new system e Does not include water used for flushing lines/fire flows f As reported by utility Typical terms used to define pricing structures and rate types are summarized below: Base charge: Minimum monthly charge for water service Uniform rate: Price per unit volume of water remains constant, regardless of consumption Declining block rate: Price per unit decreases with consumption Inclining block rate: Price per unit increases with consumption Flat rate: Price remains constant for the billing cycle regardless of consumption Uniform rate with surcharge: Uniform rate for a given volume, plus a surcharge rate for the volume of water over the given volume; may be combined with seasonal rates Seasonal/Peak rates: Apply a higher rate for water consumption during peak times. These rates can apply during the summer months Surcharge for excessive monthly peak demand: Uses a surcharge for customers who consume more than the average for their commercial or industry segment WATER SUPPLY AND WATER CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT PLAN 5-4 DATE: SEPTEMBER 2003 P:\2317-002\Task 13\Final Report Sep. 2003\Final Word\Section 5 WS- Water Conservation Analysis.doc Section 5: Water Conservation Analysis Ultra-Low Flow (ULF) Plumbing Fixture Requirements In 1990, the General Assembly amended the Georgia Water Conservation Act of 1978, requiring the use of ULF fixtures in any new construction or renovation to an existing structure. The code was in effect as of April 1, 1992, for residences and July 1, 1992, for commercial developments. This legislation limits water use in toilets and urinals to 1.6 and 1.0 gallons per flush, respectively. In addition, showerhead flows are limited to 2.5 gallons per minute, and kitchen and lavatory faucets are limited to 2.5 and 2.0 gallons per minute, respectively. In 1992 the Federal Energy Policy Act became law. It went further than the Georgia law in that it mandated that only low flow fixtures could be sold. The requirements apply to residential and commercial fixtures and are listed in Table 5-2. The federal requirements for kitchen faucets are 2.2 gpm, which superseded the Georgia law. TABLE 5-2 Federal Water Use Requirements for Ultra-Low Flow Fixtures ULF Fixtures Toilets 1.6 gpf Urinals 1.0 gpf Shower heads 2.5 gpm gpf = gallons per flush gpm = gallons per minute Bath Faucets 2.0 gpm Kitchen Faucets 2.2 gpm Georgia Drought Management Plan The Georgia Drought Management Plan was approved by the DNR Board on March 26, 2003, and consists of both pre-drought mitigation strategies and drought response strategies for the entire State. It defines triggers used to determine drought conditions, as well as specific actions to take, depending on the level of drought severity. One of the pre-drought strategies, or longterm actions, is an outdoor watering reduction schedule. This schedule is based on an odd-even outdoor water use schedule, in which odd numbered addresses may water on Tuesdays, Thursdays, and Sundays, and even numbered addresses may water on Mondays, Wednesdays, and Saturdays. There are exceptions and specific schedules for commercial and other nonresidential water uses. For the purposes of the WS Plan, no water use reductions are predicted from this measure. Further information about the Georgia Drought Management Plan can be obtained from the DNR or EPD. Evaluation of Alternate Water Conservation Measures Menu of Potential Water Conservation Measures Over 100 potential water conservation measures were considered for possible use in the District. The initial list included a broad range of water conservation measures. These measures included, but were not limited to, infrastructure-based measures, such as toilet rebates, as well as programs to be carried out by a water provider or some other group, such as commercial water audits. A stepwise screening process was undertaken to reduce the number of initial water conservation measures to a more manageable number, and to select those measures to be WATER SUPPLY AND WATER CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT PLAN 5-5 DATE: SEPTEMBER 2003 P:\2317-002\Task 13\Final Report Sep. 2003\Final Word\Section 5 WS- Water Conservation Analysis.doc Section 5: Water Conservation Analysis studied in more detail for their effectiveness in the District. The initial goal of the process was to reduce the number of measures to about 25. However, a well run conservation program can only focus on 5 to 10 measures at a time, so the measures with the most potential for water savings were screened using the process described below. Screening Process Each of the 100 potential measures was scored based on four qualitative criteria, based on a scale of 1 to 5, with 5 being the most acceptable. Measures with low scores were eliminated from further consideration, while those with high scores were passed into the next evaluation phase (cost-effectiveness analysis using the DSS Model). The four qualitative criteria were Technology/Market Maturity, Service Area Match, Customer Acceptance/Equity, and Better Measures Available, and are discussed below. Technology/Market Maturity: Is required technology available commercially and supported by the local service industry? For example, a device may be screened out if it is not yet commercially available in the region. Service Area Match: Is the technology appropriate for the area's climate, building stock, or lifestyle? For example, promoting XeriscapeTM gardens for multifamily or commercial sites may not be appropriate where water use analysis indicates relatively little outdoor irrigation. Customer Acceptance/Equity: Are customers willing to implement measures? If not, the water savings would be too low to be significant. Measures should also be equitable to ensure that one category of customers does not benefit while another pays the costs without receiving benefits. Customer acceptance may be based on convenience, economics, perceived fairness, or aesthetics. Better Measure Available: Where the options are equally effective, which is more appropriate (e.g. ease of implementation or unit cost)? The consolidation process reduced the list of 100 measures to 25. At this point, the DSS model was used to evaluate the remaining measures, in order to develop the final conservation program. A traditional economic screening analysis was performed, as shown in Figure 5-1. First, the DSS model evaluated each of these 25 measures individually, simulating if they were implemented alone. Next, the measures were ranked based on the cost of the water saved ($/million gallons saved) and the best measures were selected. Combinations of these best measures were then placed in several different "Option Packages" or alternatives. They were built to have increasing levels of water savings. Finally, the option packages were evaluated to determine how much water these measures saved when working together (this accounts for overlapping measures and interaction). Feedback was solicited from the Technical Coordinating Committee and Basin Advisory Councils, in an attempt to create the best overall option package. WATER SUPPLY AND WATER CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT PLAN 5-6 DATE: SEPTEMBER 2003 P:\2317-002\Task 13\Final Report Sep. 2003\Final Word\Section 5 WS- Water Conservation Analysis.doc Section 5: Water Conservation Analysis The time value of money was explicitly considered. The value of all future costs and benefits was discounted to 2001 (the base year) at the real interest rate of 3.0%. The DSS model calculates this real interest rate, adjusting the current nominal interest rate (assumed to be approximately 6.1%) by the assumed rate of inflation (3%). Cash flows discounted in this manner are referred to as "Present Value" sums herein and are used in order to properly make comparisons of water conservation measures. FIGURE 5-1 Evaluation Process of Water Conservation Measures Overview of the Evaluation Methodology Benefit-cost analysis has been used by many water providers to evaluate and help select water conservation measures that are best suited to local conditions. The purpose of benefitcost analysis was to identify which of the 25 measures were the most costeffective for the District to pursue. The following seven steps implement the evaluation methodology, shown graphically in Figure 5-2: 1. Develop water use projections without additional conservation. Projections cover each key customer category and are broken down into indoor end uses and outdoor end uses. These were presented in Section 4 of this report. 2. Identify possible water conservation measures and screen the measures qualitatively to identify those that are applicable to the service area. Develop appropriate unit water savings and cost factors for each measure. 3. Estimate the affected population for each conservation measure by multiplying the total service area population by the measure's projected population that implements the measure. This factor is called the market penetration or installation rate. 4. Estimate total annual average water savings. 5. Identify types of benefits to the water agency including capital projects that could be deferred or downsized, and reduced operation and maintenance costs. Also, quantify total benefits for each year in the planning period by multiplying average water savings by the computed value of the benefits. 6. Determine initial and annual costs to implement the measures, to develop total costs for each measure. WATER SUPPLY AND WATER CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT PLAN 5-7 DATE: SEPTEMBER 2003 P:\2317-002\Task 13\Final Report Sep. 2003\Final Word\Section 5 WS- Water Conservation Analysis.doc Section 5: Water Conservation Analysis 7. Compare benefits and costs of measures by computing the present value of costs and benefits over the planning period. FIGURE 5-2 Benefit-Cost Analysis Methodology Evaluation Tool The determination of the economic feasibility of water conservation programs depends on comparing the costs of the programs to the benefits provided. The analysis was performed using the DSS model. Figure 5-3 is a diagram of the structure of the DSS model. The DSS model is a Microsoft Excel-based program, programmed in Visual Basic. The original intent was to group the 16 counties into 4 or 5 subgroups of the District, to be modeled together. However, due to requests from the Technical Coordinating Committee, 16 separate county-level models were developed. The DSS model calculates savings at the end-use level. For example, the model determines the amount of water a toilet rebate program saves in daily toilet use for each single family account. Benefits are based on savings in water and wastewater facility operation and maintenance, as well as savings from deferring or downsizing any identified candidate future capital facilities. WATER SUPPLY AND WATER CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT PLAN 5-8 DATE: SEPTEMBER 2003 P:\2317-002\Task 13\Final Report Sep. 2003\Final Word\Section 5 WS- Water Conservation Analysis.doc Section 5: Water Conservation Analysis FIGURE 5-3 Structure of the DSS Model Present value analysis is used to discount costs and benefits to the base year. From this analysis benefit-cost ratios of each measure are computed. When measures are combined into programs, the interactions are accounted for by multiplying water use reduction factors together at the end use level. A water use reduction factor is 1.0 minus the water savings, expressed as a decimal. This avoids double counting when more than one measure acts to reduce the same end use of water. Perspectives Benefit-cost analysis can be performed from several different perspectives, based on who is affected. For planning water conservation programs for utilities, the perspectives most commonly used for benefit-cost analyses include the utility and the community. The "utility" benefit-cost analysis is based on the benefits and costs to the water provider. The "community" benefit-cost analysis includes the utility benefit and costs together with account owner/customer benefits and costs. These include customer energy benefits and costs of implementing the measure, beyond what the utility pays. The utility perspective offers two advantages for this analysis. First, it considers only the program costs that will be directly borne by the utility. This enables the utility to fairly compare potential investments for saving and supplying water. Second, because revenue shifts are treated as transfer payments, the analysis is not complicated with uncertainties associated with WATER SUPPLY AND WATER CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT PLAN 5-9 DATE: SEPTEMBER 2003 P:\2317-002\Task 13\Final Report Sep. 2003\Final Word\Section 5 WS- Water Conservation Analysis.doc Section 5: Water Conservation Analysis long-term rate projections and rate design assumptions. Because it is the water provider's role to develop a conservation program that is paramount in this Plan, the utility perspective was primarily used to evaluate elements of the conservation measures. Comparison of Measures Table 5-3 shows the evaluation of measures for the District, which is a sum of the results for each county. This table presents how much water the measures would save, how much they would cost and what the benefit-cost ratios are if the measures were run on a stand-alone basis, i.e. without interaction or overlap from other measures that might affect the same end use(s). Note that measures with benefit-cost ratios less than 1.0 have a negative Net Utility Benefit. Water savings shown are averaged over the 30-year analysis period. Other key statistics are the cost of water saved in dollars per million gallons ($/MG), and the benefit-cost ratios. Benefits and costs are defined below: Utility benefits and costs: Those benefits and costs that the utility would receive or spend. Community benefits and costs: Community benefits equal utility benefits plus customer energy (cost to heat water) benefits. Community costs include utility and customer costs. Water benefits: Based on assigning a typical unit value for avoided treated surface water at a cost of $1,500/MG and avoided typical wastewater costs (wastewater benefits) of $250/MG dry weather flow reduced (not capital). Costs for the utility: Includes measure set-up, annual administration, and payment of rebates or purchase of devices or services as specified in the measure design. Customer costs: Includes costs of implementing the measure and maintaining its effectiveness over the life of the measure. WATER SUPPLY AND WATER CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT PLAN DATE: SEPTEMBER 2003 P:\2317-002\Task 13\Final Report Sep. 2003\Final Word\Section 5 WS- Water Conservation Analysis.doc 5-10 Section 5: Water Conservation Analysis TABLE 5-3 District-Wide Results of Conservation Measures Evaluation Conservation Measure Present Value of Water Utility Benefits ($1,000) Present Value of Total Community Benefits ($1,000) Present Value of Water Utility Costs ($1,000) Present Value of Total Community Costs ($1,000) Water Utility BenefitCost Ratio Total Community Benefit-Cost Ratio Average Water Savings (MGD) Cost of Savings per Unit Volume ($/MG) Net Utility Benefit ($1,000) 1a RSF ULFT Retrofit on Resale $142,000 $142,000 $3,200 $4,900 44.9 29.2 12.0 $23.26 $138,800 1b RMF ULFT Retrofit on Resale $59,400 $59,400 $2,300 $3,800 26.3 15.7 5.0 $40.01 $57,200 2 Residential SF Washer Rebate $8,100 $27,200 $14,900 $25,000 0.5 1.1 0.6 $2,165.77 -$6,800 3 Residential Shower Retrofit $37,700 $138,000 $14,200 $14,200 2.7 9.7 3.0 $412.06 $23,500 4 Residential Water Audits $25,700 $44,700 $45,700 $55,800 0.6 0.8 2.2 $1,804.18 -$20,000 5 Public Information $70,300 $135,900 $51,800 $51,800 1.4 2.6 6.0 $765.92 $18,500 6 Multifamily Submetering $40,800 $89,600 $3,000 $40,800 13.6 2.2 3.4 $78.07 $37,800 7 Irrigation Controller Rebate $6,400 $6,400 $10,300 $13,900 0.6 0.5 0.6 $1,452.42 -$4,000 8 Rain Sensor Regulations $8,000 $8,000 $3,200 $10,000 2.5 0.8 0.8 $336.02 $4,800 9 Non RSF Landscape Requirements $15,500 $15,500 $2,700 $27,300 5.7 0.6 1.6 $146.14 $12,800 10 Commercial Water Audits $25,200 $25,200 $11,600 $18,300 2.2 1.4 2.2 $470.68 $13,600 11a Commercial ULFT Rebates $50,800 $50,800 $12,500 $25,100 4.0 2.0 4.1 $273.11 $38,200 11b Commercial Urinal Rebate $27,200 $27,200 $6,700 $13,400 4.1 2.0 2.3 $261.07 $20,500 12 Commercial Washer Rebate $7,600 $25,000 $800 $1,200 9.0 21.4 0.6 $120.52 $6,800 13 Cooling Tower Meter Rebate $4,700 $4,700 $1,200 $2,500 4.0 1.9 0.4 $234.68 $3,500 14 Commercial Kitchen Spray Wash $4,300 $9,100 $1,600 $1,600 2.8 5.8 0.4 $393.32 $2,800 15 Hotel & Motel Water Audits $2,500 $2,500 $2,100 $2,600 1.2 1.0 0.2 $894.72 $400 16 Capacity Buy-Back for ICI $1,500 $1,500 $15,500 $18,500 0.1 0.1 0.1 $10,550.51 -$14,000 17 Rebates for X-Ray Recycling Units $5,900 $5,900 $1,000 $22,500 6.2 0.3 0.5 $176.06 $4,900 18 Require Self-Closing Faucets for New ICI $16,200 $16,200 $1,000 $10,600 16.8 1.5 1.5 $58.15 $15,200 19 Efficient Process Equipment for New ICI $12,500 $12,500 $3,300 $14,300 3.8 0.9 1.1 $259.51 $9,200 20 Require 0.5 gpf Urinals for ICI $24,700 $24,700 $1,000 $1,000 25.6 25.6 2.2 $38.54 $23,700 21 Irrigation Audits for Large Turf Areas $10,400 $10,400 $22,800 $29,300 0.5 0.4 1.0 $1,996.24 -$12,400 22 XeriscapeTM of Public Areas $300 $300 $300 $900 0.9 0.4 0.0 $1,013.53 $0 23, UFW Reduction (Audits & Leak 24 Detection/Repair) $296,000 $296,000 $74,300 $74,300 4.0 4.0 29.1 $225.76 $221,700 25 Conservation Pricing $198,200 $254,000 $8,800 $8,800 22.4 28.8 20.1 $38.81 $189,400 26 Modified Residential Water Audits $8,900 $15,500 $15,000 $18,300 0.6 0.8 0.7 $1,832.07 -$6,100 Notes: RSF = Residential Single Family; RMF = Residential Multi Family; ICI = Industrial/Commercial/Institutional; ULFT = Ultra Low Flush Toilets; UFW = Unaccounted For Water; Present Value calculated using 3% interest rate WATER SUPPLY AND WATER CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT PLAN DATE: SEPTEMBER 2003 P:\2317-002\Task 13\Final Report Sep. 2003\Final Word\Section 5 WS- Water Conservation Analysis.doc 5-11 Section 5: Water Conservation Analysis Best Option Packages Table 5-4 provides a short description of the 25 measures and the option package in which they were placed (if any). Three option packages were designed to accomplish an increasing level of water savings. They are not intended to be rigid programs, but rather to demonstrate the range in savings that could be generated if selected measures were run together. In this step, we account for the overlap in water savings (and benefits), and estimate combined savings and benefits from programs or packages of measures. The work was done at the county level and then aggregated to the District level for presentation. TABLE 5-4 Description of the 25 Conservation Measures Evaluated in the DSS Model Conservation Measure Description Work with the real estate industry to require a certificate of Require 1.6 gal per flush toilets to be compliance be submitted to the water provider that verifies that a 1 installed at the time of sale of existing plumber has inspected the RSF or RMF property, and who buildings determines that efficient fixtures were either already there or were installed at the time of sale, before close of escrow. Together with local energy companies, if possible, offer rebates for 2 Rebates for high efficiency residential clothes purchase of water efficient machines. Rebates would be scaled to washers water efficiency as rated by the Consortium for Energy Efficiency Inc. During an audit or through direct mail solicitation, a free retrofit kit would be provided to existing older single family residential 3 Distribute retrofit kits w/low flow showerheads homes. The kit could contain a low-flow showerhead; toilet leakdetection dye tablets, displacement device, or early closure device; a faucet aerator, faucet washers to fix leaky faucets; and a pamphlet on how to conserve water. The water provider would offer complete water audits for single 4 Residential water audits family homes. Focus would be on improving indoor and outdoor water use. The water provider would increase public education efforts to encourage water conservation and provide information on demand Increase public education (expand web site, management techniques. The education program would work in videos, CD's) include: trigger shut-off valves accordance with other selected conservation measures and thereby 5 and hose end timers and new home award increase the implementation rate and savings of the other measures. programs, combined with increased school The water provider would provide information to create and education programs produce articles and segments in the newspapers on TV, on billboards, and for the radio encouraging and explaining conservation methods and the importance of saving water. Rescind any regulations that prohibit sub-metering of multi-family buildings. Sub-metering would be encouraged through water audits Incentives for retrofitting existing apartment and direct mail promotions, and possibly incentives to building 6 buildings with sub-meters and require sub- owners. Require all new multi-family units to provide sub-meters metering on new multifamily units on individual units. To help reduce financial impacts on tenants, regulations would be adopted that specify acceptable methods of metering and billing. 7 Rebates for high-tech irrigation controllers Provide a rebate for advanced irrigation controllers that have at least a water-budgeting feature and multiple start times and a rain sensor/soil moisture sensor. Option Package B,C None A,B,C None A,B,C B,C None WATER SUPPLY AND WATER CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT PLAN DATE: SEPTEMBER 2003 P:\2317-002\Task 13\Final Report Sep. 2003\Final Word\Section 5 WS- Water Conservation Analysis.doc 5-12 Section 5: Water Conservation Analysis Conservation Measure Regulations for rain sensor/shut-offs on new 8 automatic irrigation systems and rain-sensors rebate for existing irrigation systems Landscape requirements for new landscaping 9 systems (turf limits or regulations). Require efficient irrigation system design standards 10 Free commercial water audits and feasibility reports Rebates for high use commercial urinals and 11 1.6 gal per flush toilets and/or direct installation for high use commercial sites Offer incentives for replacement of clothes 12 washers in coin-operated laundries with efficient models 13 Require or offer rebates for meters on cooling towers 14 Restaurant low flow spray rinse nozzles 15 Focused water audits for hotels/ motels 16 Capacity buy-back for ICI process improvements 17 Rebates for X-Ray recycling units 18 Self-closing faucets on new ICI buildings Require efficient process equipment for selected businesses (restaurants, 19 hotels/motels, office sanitation) and prohibit once through cooling and non-recycling fountains, other non-efficient water features 20 Require 0.5 gal per flush urinals in new ICI buildings Description Require the installation of rain sensors with automatic irrigation systems in new construction. The water provider or building department would inspect irrigation accounts (or randomly inspect large summer volume users) and issue fines to those who do not have a rain shut-off device installed. Rebates or free devices would be offered to existing accounts with automatic irrigation systems. Draft and encourage adoption of an ordinance to require landscaping of new nonresidential properties to use only native or water conserving species. Provide personnel to educate those affected by the ordinance and ensure effective implementation once the ordinance is adopted. The water provider would target high water-using accounts for this commercial water audit program. Accounts that agree to participate in the program would also agree to make a good faith effort to install cost-effective water conserving equipment. Incentives could be offered to increase participation and effectiveness. Selectively provide rebates or direct installation to businesses to convert to efficient toilets only where toilets are subject to high use, such as restaurants, theaters, etc Laundromat managers would be offered incentives to retrofit or use efficient clothes washers. The rebate would either go to the manager or the washing machine leasing company. Offer a rebate to buildings that install submeters to measure the make-up and bleed-off water of cooling towers. Provide educational brochures and a phone contact of a knowledgeable person to provide assistance. Provide free installation of 1.6 gpm spray nozzles for the rinse and clean operation in restaurants. Following a free water audit, the hotel/motel receives a rebate offer for equipment identified that would save water. Provide a rebate schedule for certain efficient equipment, such as air-cooled ice machines, so hotels/motels could apply without an audit. Set-up a low interest loan or grant program to buy back capacity from large users who install water efficient equipment. The customer would propose a project (possibly as the result of a water audit). The water provider would estimate the water savings and calculate a rebate based on their avoided costs for new capacity. Customers would receive an upfront payment upon signing a contract to install the equipment. Conduct a brief audit of X-Ray machines to identify machines where the process water, developer, or filter solution could be recycled. Offer rebates for water-recycling equipment. Require non-residential accounts to install automatic (infrared sensor) or manual self-closing faucets for all new customer or high use restrooms. Require new facilities to install water efficient equipment in new facilities, such as those listed. Require that new building be fitted with 0.5 gal per flush urinals rather than the current standard of 1.0-gal per flush models. Option Package B,C C B,C C C C C C None None C C B,C WATER SUPPLY AND WATER CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT PLAN DATE: SEPTEMBER 2003 P:\2317-002\Task 13\Final Report Sep. 2003\Final Word\Section 5 WS- Water Conservation Analysis.doc 5-13 Section 5: Water Conservation Analysis Conservation Measure 21 Irrigation audits of large turf areas 22 XersicapeTM landscaping of city / county and utility facilities where appropriate 23 System water audits / leak detection (UFW Reduction) 24 Design water rates based on conservation pricing concepts 25 Modified residential water audits Description Provide outdoor audit of top 20% of high water-using landscape facilities. The auditor would determine how irrigation practices are undertaken, present the results of the audit, and provide recommendations for the facility to conserve water including irrigating during appropriate times, not irrigating upon pavement and using evapo-transpiration programs, if available. Encourage irrigation conservation methods through the media. Appropriate and publicly visible sites would be selected for XeriscapeTM demonstration gardens. Gardens would be professionally designed and managed. Signs and brochures would explain plant material choices. Gardens would be promoted and tours offered through the public education program. Provider could use this garden(s) to provide a virtual tour on its website. Audit the water distribution system every year and identify the amount of water projected to be lost through leakage. Use leak detection equipment to find leaks and, upon locating them, repair the leaks as soon as possible. Reduce UFW to 15% of withdrawal. Encourage more efficient use of water by shifting demand from peak periods to off-peak periods. The surcharge rate approach is depicted by a higher rate being charged during the season (peak) for all consumption above a set threshold. Implement periodic 25% rate increases. Assume 0.05 and 0.20 price elasticities on indoor and outdoor use, respectively. Water providers would offer water audits to single family homeowners for several years after major water price increases as a customer response. Option Package C None A,B,C B,C B,C Notes: RSF = Residential Single Family RMF = Residential Multi Family ICI = Industrial/Commercial/Institutional UFW = Unaccounted For Water Selection criteria for the measures in each option package included the following, by program: Program A includes the most cost-effective measures and is a small increase from current efforts. As such, it includes three measures, Public Education, Unaccountedfor Water Reduction (where needed), and Residential Retrofit. Program B includes Program A measures plus additional measures. It was designed to be the midpoint, and generally consisted of 10 measures, all relatively costeffective, but less aggressive, yet still able to save significant amounts of water. Program C includes 20 measures (a practical limit for conservation program managers to handle at one time). It includes Program A measures and nearly all of Program B measures, plus additional measures. Measures that either saved a small amount of water or were not cost-effective (benefit-cost ratio less than 1.0 and a high cost of water saved) were eliminated. Aggressive regulatory measures are included. WATER SUPPLY AND WATER CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT PLAN DATE: SEPTEMBER 2003 P:\2317-002\Task 13\Final Report Sep. 2003\Final Word\Section 5 WS- Water Conservation Analysis.doc 5-14 Section 5: Water Conservation Analysis District-Wide Results of Option Packages Evaluation Table 5-5 presents key evaluation statistics compiled from the individual county DSS models. Assuming all measures are successfully implemented, projected water savings and wastewater reductions for 2030 in MGD are shown, as are the costs of achieving this reduction. The costs are expressed three ways. Total present value over the 30-year period, the money utilities would need to budget in the first 5 years to get the program underway, and the cost of water saved. TABLE 5-5 District Wide Results of Option Packages Evaluation 2030 2030 Present Value First Five Water 2030 WW External of Year Cost of Conservation Utility Water Generated Water Water Utility Total Utility Water Option Benefit- Savings Reduction Savings Costs Costs Saved Package Cost Ratio (MGD) (MGD) (MGD) ($1,000) ($1,000) ($/MG) A 2.9 52.3 9.0 1.9 $140,300 $42,400 $326 B 4.8 118.1 50.9 26.0 $186,900 $52,500 $199 C 4.5 131.9 61.1 29.5 $226,500 $72,600 $212 Notes: Present Value is determined using an interest rate of 3% Cost of water saved is present value of water utility cost divided by total thirty-year water savings. Figure 5-4 shows that marginal returns increase as more money is spent to achieve savings. The cost of water saved decreases from $326/MG with Program A to $199/MG with Program B, and then to $212/MG with Program C. The benefit-cost ratios increase from Program A to C (all packages are cost-effective). The increasing effectiveness is due to the inclusion of relatively low cost, but aggressive, measures in Program B and C, such as conservation pricing. After review by the various counties and TCC members, certain changes were made to the FIGURE 5-4 Present Value of Utility Costs Versus Water Saved WATER SUPPLY AND WATER CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT PLAN DATE: SEPTEMBER 2003 P:\2317-002\Task 13\Final Report Sep. 2003\Final Word\Section 5 WS- Water Conservation Analysis.doc 5-15 Section 5: Water Conservation Analysis original concept of Program B. There was strong support for including conservation pricing as a key method to achieve water savings. Conservation pricing and modified residential water audits were added to Program B, and the commercial washer rebate program was deleted from Program B but retained in Program C. All results presented herein reflect that change, and the modified Program B had higher water savings and a lower cost of water saved than the original Program B. County Results of Option Packages Evaluation Tables 5-6 and 5-7 present selected evaluation statistics for the three option packages for each of the District's 16 counties. Note how water savings in MGD, but not percent, tend to vary with the size of the county. Other important factors are the current level of unaccounted for water (especially over the goal of 15%) and the amount of commercial water use (as 60% of the measures evaluated target commercial use). TABLE 5-6 County Results of Option Packages Evaluation County Bartow Cherokee Clayton Cobb Coweta DeKalb Douglas Fayette Forsyth Fulton Gwinnett Hall Henry Paulding Rockdale Walton Total Water Utility Benefit-Cost Ratio AB C 3.2 3.6 3.5 2.5 3.7 3.3 1.5 4.3 3.9 3.2 5.2 4.9 1.8 2.5 2.3 4.0 6.6 6.3 1.4 2.6 2.3 1.5 3.3 3.0 2.7 4.3 4.2 3.7 7.7 7.2 2.8 5.2 5.0 2.3 3.2 3.0 2.5 3.4 3.2 1.5 3.0 2.6 1.9 2.5 1.8 1.8 2.4 2.1 2.9 4.8 4.5 2030 Water Savings (MGD) A B C 7.2 9.2 9.7 2.7 5.2 5.3 0.5 3.4 3.9 7.0 14.9 16.7 1.2 2.5 2.9 8.1 17.2 19.2 0.8 2.3 2.5 0.3 1.7 2.0 2.9 6.4 7.0 6.9 22.8 28.1 6.2 15.7 16.4 3.0 5.4 5.6 2.7 4.8 5.1 0.4 1.7 1.8 1.6 3.0 3.3 0.9 2.0 2.1 52.3 118.1 131.9 2030 Water Savings % of Baseline Use A B C 15% 20% 21% 7% 13% 13% 1% 9% 10% 6% 13% 15% 4% 9% 11% 6% 13% 15% 3% 10% 11% 1% 7% 9% 5% 11% 13% 3% 9% 12% 4% 10% 10% 6% 11% 12% 7% 12% 13% 2% 7% 7% 6% 12% 13% 5% 11% 11% 5% 11% 12% 2030 WW Generated Reduction (MGD) A B C 0.3 1.4 1.8 0.4 1.9 2.0 0.5 2.6 3.0 1.2 6.2 7.4 0.3 1.1 1.4 1.2 7.7 9.3 0.3 1.3 1.4 0.2 1.1 1.4 0.4 2.3 2.7 1.5 12.2 16.3 1.4 6.8 7.2 0.3 1.7 1.8 0.4 1.5 1.8 0.3 1.2 1.3 0.2 1.2 1.4 0.2 0.8 0.9 9.0 50.9 61.1 TABLE 5-7 Additional County Results of Option Packages Evaluation County Bartow Cherokee Clayton Cobb Coweta DeKalb Present Value of Water Utility Costs ($1,000) A B C $11,900 $13,700 $15,000 $7,300 $9,200 $10,500 $3,800 $6,700 $8,800 $18,600 $23,100 $27,600 $4,700 $6,700 $8,300 $17,600 $21,700 $25,600 Five Year Total Utility Costs ($1,000) A B C $1,000 $1,500 $2,100 $1,000 $1,500 $2,100 $1,900 $2,300 $2,900 $1,000 $1,700 $2,800 $7,200 $8,000 $10,400 $6,200 $6,800 $9,300 Cost of Water Saved ($/MG) A B C $273 $246 $253 $361 $250 $278 $704 $232 $260 $297 $184 $197 $518 $372 $408 $239 $146 $154 WATER SUPPLY AND WATER CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT PLAN DATE: SEPTEMBER 2003 P:\2317-002\Task 13\Final Report Sep. 2003\Final Word\Section 5 WS- Water Conservation Analysis.doc 5-16 Section 5: Water Conservation Analysis Present Value of Water Utility Costs Five Year Total Utility Costs Cost of Water Saved ($1,000) ($1,000) ($/MG) County A B C A B C A B C Douglas $4,300 $6,200 $7,700 $1,500 $2,000 $2,600 $703 $370 $418 Fayette $1,700 $3,600 $4,800 $400 $900 $1,400 $702 $289 $324 Forsyth $7,000 $8,900 $10,100 $1,400 $1,900 $2,600 $340 $212 $220 Fulton $18,400 $27,700 $37,200 $6,900 $8,900 $14,000 $257 $127 $138 Gwinnett $18,100 $22,800 $26,200 $6,800 $7,700 $9,800 $345 $185 $194 Hall $9,100 $11,500 $12,700 $2,800 $3,400 $4,000 $396 $290 $309 Henry $7,000 $8,900 $10,000 $1,600 $2,100 $2,600 $361 $274 $287 Paulding $2,200 $3,800 $4,800 $500 $900 $1,300 $714 $328 $381 Rockdale $5,300 $7,100 $10,900 $1,100 $1,500 $2,500 $476 $364 $507 Walton $3,300 $5,300 $6,400 $700 $1,200 $1,700 $511 $391 $434 Total $140,300 $186,900 $226,500 $42,400 $52,500 $72,600 $326 $199 $212 Notes: Present Value is determined using an interest rate of 3% Cost of water saved is present value of water utility cost divided by total thirty-year water savings. Recommended Water Conservation Program (B) Conservation Program B was selected as the recommended program. The following 11 measures are included in this recommended water conservation program. A description of each of the measures is provided below, and more information about the implementation of these measures can be found in Section 8. Require Toilet Retrofit At The Time Of Sale This measure would require that, prior to transfer of ownership, a single family or multifamily building must meet the plumbing codes for new buildings as follows: Toilets not to exceed 1.6 gallons per flush Urinals not to exceed 1.0 gallon per flush 2.5 gallon per minute showerheads 2.2 gallon per minute faucet aerators Exemptions may be allowed in certain pre-defined cases (certain fixtures in historic district homes, etc.). Distribute Retrofit Kits Homes built before 1980 generally do not have low flow showerheads, low flush toilets, or faucet aerators. Even some homes built after 1980 may not have these devices because of a lack of plumbing code enforcement. The Georgia plumbing code has required 1.6 gallons per flush (gpf) toilets, 2.5 gallons per minute (gpm) showerheads, and 2.5 gpm faucets since 1991. To promote indoor water conservation, water utilities would give single-family homeowners retrofit kits with sufficient equipment and instructions to retrofit two bathrooms. Multifamily building owners would get sufficient kits for the entire building. Retrofit kits would contain easy-to-install low flow showerheads, faucet aerators, and toilet tank retrofit devices. Alternatively, the program could only focus on distributing low-flow showerheads, since that is the device that has the most potential for savings. The utility service area sections built before 1992 would be given kits; newer areas would be omitted. WATER SUPPLY AND WATER CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT PLAN DATE: SEPTEMBER 2003 P:\2317-002\Task 13\Final Report Sep. 2003\Final Word\Section 5 WS- Water Conservation Analysis.doc 5-17 Section 5: Water Conservation Analysis Increase Public Education This measure serves to tie all other measures together, and is one of the most important components of the District's overall Education and Public Awareness Program. It would not only address specific measures, but also cultural/social aspects of establishing or enhancing a water conservation ethic among water customers. Most importantly, this program would convey to the public an understanding of why water conservation is important and why the combined efforts of thousands of households can be significant. The details of this Education and Public Awareness Program are described in Section 16. Programs could include theatrical productions, poster contests for schoolchildren, T-shirt design contests, speakers for employee and community groups, presentations and tours with hands-on demonstrations, radio and television time, and printed educational material, such as bill inserts. This program also could include expanding the school education program with a web site, videos, and teaching materials such as the Water Sourcebook. The Water Sourcebook is produced by the EPA, and is available in Georgia through the Georgia Water Wise Council. Provide for or Require Sub-Metering Multi family Units As a condition of water service, all new multi family buildings would be required to sub-meter, or be required to add the provision for sub-meters, into their plumbing designs. This would, at a minimum, provide for two metering unions at a readable location in the unit, or wiring to an external location outside the unit, such that the existing owner or new owner could install submeters in the future without any plumbing retrofits. In the case of existing multi family buildings, water utilities would implement a voluntary program, complying with Official Code of Georgia, 12-5-180.1. Local governments would be responsible for seeing that the metering was done properly at the time of construction of new buildings and for ensuring that the renter is protected from excessive charges for water and wastewater service. Official Code of Georgia, 12-5-180.1, allows sub-metering to be done, but offers few protections to the renter. For example, tenants are charged for water used in common areas for landscaping and laundry rooms, and can be charged a "reasonable fee" to service and produce bills. Regulations for Rain Sensor / Shut-offs on Automatic Irrigation Systems A rain sensor is an electric device that detects and measures rainfall amounts, and that can override the cycle of an irrigation system, turning it off when a predetermined amount of rain has fallen. Criteria would be developed to determine the amount of rain that must fall before the irrigation system must automatically turn off. The measure would require rain sensors to be installed in new developments served by in-ground irrigation systems. Commercial Water Audits and Feasibility Reports Commercial/industrial customers would be ranked according to annual water use. High water-using accounts would be offered a free water survey. The program would target hotels, hospitals, restaurants, and customers with high water-using equipment, such as cooling towers. The survey report would identify ways for the building manager/owner to reduce water consumption and provide estimates of the paybacks for each identified conservation measure. The Pollution Prevention Assistance Division (P2AD) of the DNR can be used to train and/or certify auditors in performing the water audits. WATER SUPPLY AND WATER CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT PLAN DATE: SEPTEMBER 2003 P:\2317-002\Task 13\Final Report Sep. 2003\Final Word\Section 5 WS- Water Conservation Analysis.doc 5-18 Section 5: Water Conservation Analysis Require 0.5 gal/flush Urinals A local building code amendment would be developed that requires 0.5 gal/flush urinals in all new construction and remodeling requiring a building permit. These urinals could create significant savings versus the existing 1.0 gal/flush urinals required in the existing plumbing code. Using Price as a Tool for Water Conservation Based on various studies of water demand in the United States over the past 15 years, it has been recognized that the use of water pricing as a primary tool for water conservation is not an effective means in normal demand periods, when used by itself. Instead, water pricing can be used to support implementation of customer programs and to increase the participation of targeted groups. The relationship between price and water use is very complex and care must be exercised both in terms of predicting the revenue that will be generated under various pricing schemes, and reviewing equity issues for ratepayers. The major issues are presented below. The EPD Water Planning Standards states, "The plan shall provide that all local governments have water conservation pricing by January 1, 2004." There are many different types of pricing structures that encourage conservation, and it is easier to identify those structures that do not. For example, rates that discount based on increased usage, such as a declining block structure, or do not charge based on the amount of water used, such as flat rates, do not encourage conservation. All water providers in the District should discontinue the use of declining block rates. Appropriate water price schedules should be an important ingredient in any comprehensive conservation effort because of the broad-based support they give to the overall conservation program. A conservation rate structure should be multi-tiered, preferably three tiers (or more). Implementing a conservation rate structure should be accompanied by the shortest billing cycle practicable, not longer than bimonthly, so that the message of historical water use and cost can be adequately conveyed to the customers to allow them time to respond. Leakage Reduction Program Improvements A major component of Program B is the leakage reduction program, which has the potential to provide much of the planned water savings. To improve on current efforts, a number of existing issues need to be addressed, including accurate measurement and identification of water losses, economic levels of leakage, and the development of leakage targets. In October 2000, the International Water Association (IWA) developed a standard terminology and definitions of water balance components for international use. Following this approach and using standard definitions will assist in the identification of `Real Losses' as distinct from `Apparent Losses' (metering inaccuracies and unauthorized consumption). The starting point needs to be an evaluation of current leakage, not `unaccounted for water.' The savings from leakage reduction should be optimized in relation to all other demand management options. Since leakage cannot be totally eliminated, this analysis will help establish what is an "economic level" of leakage. This level is likely to be different for every WATER SUPPLY AND WATER CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT PLAN DATE: SEPTEMBER 2003 P:\2317-002\Task 13\Final Report Sep. 2003\Final Word\Section 5 WS- Water Conservation Analysis.doc 5-19 Section 5: Water Conservation Analysis utility, and generalizations of how much leakage is "high" should not be made until this analysis has been done. In a least cost analysis, several different leakage management options could be considered, for example: Zone metering to create District Meter Areas (DMAs) of 3,000 - 5,000 properties. Leakage can then be assessed at a more manageable level, especially in a larger system. Pressure management with three activity levels, with the most obviously cost effective schemes considered first. Reducing pressure to what is needed will reduce leakage. Active leakage detection with three activity levels representing different levels of assigning leakage detection and repair resources. With this approach, economical leakage reduction can be achieved with additional detection and repair resources, and savings from pressure reduction. The AWWA Water Loss Control Committee adopted the IWA methodology for setting priorities and allocating resources for reducing water losses in the US in 2001. AWWA publications are being rewritten to advocate this approach. This is a much-improved approach to the prior system of setting priorities based on the percent of "unaccounted-for water." For further information on the IWA Methodology, see their website at http://www.iwahq.org.uk/. Residential Water Audits Water utilities would offer an indoor/outdoor water survey to existing single-family and multifamily residential customers with high water use. These would be timed to occur just after significant water rate increases. Surveys should target the top 25 percent (upper quartile) of water users to ensure significant water savings. It is important to target high water users; otherwise, the survey may not produce the savings needed to justify the program. The surveyors would focus on outdoor water use, identifying water waste, offering information to improve water use efficiency, and preparing a customized lawn irrigation schedule. Surveyors would also conduct a brief indoor survey and install low-cost conservation devices, such as low-flow showerheads. Each single-family survey would last approximately one and one-half hours. Multifamily surveys would last longer, but the time spent on each unit would be less, depending upon the building size and the complexity of the irrigation system. If the program evaluation suggests it would be cost-effective, the next quartile of high water users could be targeted. Water providers could use pre-qualified contractors to perform the audits, or water utility staff could be trained. District Oversight of Water Conservation This measure was not evaluated in the DSS model using the economic analysis, but experience shows that the existence of an overseeing body to act on behalf of the District water providers is beneficial. The District would facilitate and monitor the implementation of each of the water conservation measures. It would also allow the substitution of the above measures with other measures to provide the same savings, based on specific service area characteristics, at the District's discretion. More information about the specific duties the District could provide is described in Section 8. WATER SUPPLY AND WATER CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT PLAN DATE: SEPTEMBER 2003 P:\2317-002\Task 13\Final Report Sep. 2003\Final Word\Section 5 WS- Water Conservation Analysis.doc 5-20 Section 5: Water Conservation Analysis Deferral/Downsizing Of Projects Effective water conservation initiatives can create significant financial savings from the deferral and downsizing of capital improvement projects. Capacity of water treatment projects can be deferred until the demand is reached, and upgrades to meet regulatory requirements can be downsized due to decreased demand. Additionally, operation and maintenance (O&M) costs are smaller, due to the smaller treatment plant sizes. A schedule of water treatment plant expansions and upgrades was developed for the Recommended WS Plan, and savings were calculated based on the demand savings that are possible through the recommended water conservation plan (modified Program B). The analysis involved comparing the present value costs of the treatment plant expansions and upgrades, as well as the O&M costs for the District. This savings in present value costs can be compared to the present value cost for implementing the recommended conservation program, which is approximately $185 million (from Table 5-5). Table 5-8 shows the present value savings from conservation to be significantly more than the present value utility cost. From these numbers, a Benefit-Cost Ratio can be calculated, which compares these values. The Benefit-Cost Ratio for the water system benefits versus the conservation program costs is 2.5. This shows that the conservation program is very cost effective. TABLE 5-8 Water Treatment Cost Savings from Conservation Program B Cost Item Capital Cost for Water Treatment Plant Expansions Capital Cost for Water Treatment Plant Upgrades Water Treatment Plant O&M Cost Total Present Value Savings ($ million) 165 29 266 461 Future Water Demand And Wastewater Flow With Option Packages Figure 5-5 is a graphical representation of how the three option packages would reduce overall District water demand, below the baseline level (which includes the effects of current plumbing and appliance codes). By 2030, the average water savings across the District would be as follows: Program A 5% Program B 11% Program C 12% The projection of wastewater generated was reduced by the three water conservation option packages. The 2030 flow savings District-wide were calculated to be as follows: Program A 1% Program B 8% Program C 9% WATER SUPPLY AND WATER CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT PLAN DATE: SEPTEMBER 2003 P:\2317-002\Task 13\Final Report Sep. 2003\Final Word\Section 5 WS- Water Conservation Analysis.doc 5-21 Section 5: Water Conservation Analysis FIGURE 5-5 Final Water Demand Projections Table 5-9 lists the water use projections for each county in the District after the savings from the recommended conservation program have been applied. The projections that include the savings from conservation are the demands that are used in the remainder of the WS Plan to determine water supply and facility needs. TABLE 5-9 Final Water Use Projections 2030 Water Demand Projection (MGD, AADD) County Baseline After Conservation Plan Bartow 54 43 Cherokee 46 40 Clayton 46 42 Cobb 130 113 Coweta 31 29 DeKalb 148 128 Douglas 26 24 Fayette 27 25 Forsyth 65 57 Fulton 281 254 Gwinnett 183 165 Hall 55 49 Henry 46 41 Paulding 29 27 Rockdale 29 25 Walton 21 19 Total 1,217 1,081 Notes: Does not include consumptive use by Georgia Power. These figures are water withdrawals. These water uses reflect jurisdictions in which water is used, not cross-jurisdictional uses. These water uses include self-supplied water users. AADD, average annual daily demand WATER SUPPLY AND WATER CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT PLAN DATE: SEPTEMBER 2003 P:\2317-002\Task 13\Final Report Sep. 2003\Final Word\Section 5 WS- Water Conservation Analysis.doc 5-22 Section 6 Water Resources Issues and Potential Source Evaluation The Metropolitan North Georgia Water Planning District's (District) water demands will be approaching the limits of its estimated available supply by 2030. If population growth occurs quicker than expected, or if water conservation efforts do not yield the anticipated benefits, additional water supplies will be needed prior to 2030. Therefore, planning for additional water supply resources needs to begin now. The availability of water supply resources is impacted by policy decisions and regulations that maintain water quality, quantity, and aquatic habitats in and downstream of the District. This section includes the following: A review of water supply issues and water quality issues and limitations that must be taken into consideration when identifying potential water supply sources; and Identification and evaluation of potential water supply resources, including surface water, groundwater, and reuse options. Water Resources Issues By 2030, the District's water demands will be approaching the limits of the projected available water supply. This is the primary water resource issue for the District to address. Currently, the District's water supply needs are approximately 652 million gallons per day on an annual average daily demand basis (AADD-MGD). Demand could increase to over 1,200 AADD-MGD in 2030, even with the water savings that will result from existing low-flow plumbing codes. The implementation of an aggressive water conservation program could reduce projected demand by an additional 11 percent, or to approximately 1,081 AADD-MGD, as illustrated in Figure 6-1. All of the District's existing permitted surface and groundwater sources, plus currently planned reservoirs will supply up to 1,047 AADD-MGD. However, this yield is not secure. The reallocation of water storage at Lakes Lanier and Allatoona must be implemented to assure that dependable water supplies will be available to the District. In addition, the reallocations will contribute another 153 MGD to the water supply, bringing the total available to 1,200 MGD. Thus, the District's water demand is projected to equal the available supply in 2030. If the recommended conservation program is implemented and achieves the predicted results, then WATER SUPPLY AND WATER CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT PLAN 6-1 DATE: SEPTEMBER 2003 P:\2317-002\TASK 13\FINAL REPORT SEP. 2003\FINAL WORD\SECTION 6 WS - WATER RESOURCE ISSUES AND POTENTIAL SOURCE EVAL.DOC Section 6: Water Resources Issues and Potential Source Evaluation demand reductions will result in 136 AADD-MGD of water supply remaining for use to meet demands beyond 2030. Estimated available water supplies and projected needs for each river basin within the District vary. The Etowah, Flint, and Oconee River Basins are projected to have a small surplus of water supply in 2030. Projected 2030 water demands outpace available supplies in the Chattahoochee and Ocmulgee River Basins. FIGURE 6-1 Projected Water Supply and Demand As a result of the projected shortfall of available water supply for the District, recommendations for additional water supply are included as part of this Water Supply and Water Conservation Management Plan (WS Plan). Many factors were taken into consideration to identify potential water resources for the WS Plan, including water policies and regulations. Existing and pending water policies and regulations that impact the use of water sources within the District were reviewed, based on information obtained from the Georgia Environmental Protection Division (EPD) and literature review. The potential limitations on water supply resources reviewed include the following, each of which is discussed in more detail in the remainder of this section: Water Supply Issues o EPD guidance on limitations for the ACF and ACT basins o In-stream flow protection policies o Water supply efficiency and reliability Water Quality Issues o Water supply watershed protection o Downstream users needs o Emerging contaminants o Water treatment standards Other Water Resources Planning Issues o Water Supply Contingencies o Environmental Justice WATER SUPPLY AND WATER CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT PLAN 6-2 DATE: SEPTEMBER 2003 P:\2317-002\TASK 13\FINAL REPORT SEP. 2003\FINAL WORD\SECTION 6 WS - WATER RESOURCE ISSUES AND POTENTIAL SOURCE EVAL.DOC Section 6: Water Resources Issues and Potential Source Evaluation Water Supply Issues Since 1992, the States of Georgia, Alabama, and Florida have been negotiating how to best allocate the states' shared water resources in the ACF and ACT Basins. The three states agree that water availability is important to future economic growth. As Georgia (particularly metropolitan North Georgia) continues to grow and withdraw more water from the Chattahoochee River, Alabama and Florida are concerned there will not be enough water flowing downstream to meet their human and ecosystem needs. Alabama wants enough water in the ACF and ACT Basins to meet its own projected growth needs. Florida wants to make sure it will receive enough water from Georgia to protect the vital seafood industry and the marine life in Apalachicola Bay. The water allocation issues for the ACF and ACT River Basins are ongoing among Georgia, Alabama, and Florida. Early in the development of the WS Plan, EPD was consulted regarding critical minimum system conditions in the ACF and ACT basins. Their requirements are described below. ACT Basin The EPD identified target withdrawal quantities from streams in the basin. These targets are as follows: The proposed annual average day water withdrawal limits are 200 MGD for Lake Allatoona and 60 MGD for Carters Lake. An additional 20 MGD is reserved for allocation to counties upstream of the District. Interbasin transfers from the Coosa (Etowah) River Basin are limited to a maximum of 100 MGD by 2020, after which point the 100 MGD cannot be exceeded. Consumptive use, defined as stream withdrawals less return flows, is proposed to be limited to an amount equal to at least the monthly 7Q10 flow, or inflows, for new or expanded withdrawals. ACF Basin The EPD stipulated a proposed reallocation of water from Lake Lanier/Chattahoochee River Basin. The proposal includes the following: Maximum withdrawal of 705 AAD-MGD basis above Peachtree Creek, which includes water withdrawals of 280 AAD-MGD above Buford Dam and 425 AAD-MGD below Buford Dam. Approximately 41 AAD-MGD of the 705 AAD-MGD will be allocated for users upstream of the District in the Chattahoochee River Basin, including Lumpkin, White, and Habersham Counties. Average annual return rates are assumed to be 58 percent. Monthly average flow targets are proposed for the Whitesburg gage on the Chattahoochee River that are consistent with the Peachtree Creek targets, the return ratios, and historical tributary inflows. These targets will not impose a significant requirement for additional releases from Buford Dam. WATER SUPPLY AND WATER CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT PLAN 6-3 DATE: SEPTEMBER 2003 P:\2317-002\TASK 13\FINAL REPORT SEP. 2003\FINAL WORD\SECTION 6 WS - WATER RESOURCE ISSUES AND POTENTIAL SOURCE EVAL.DOC Section 6: Water Resources Issues and Potential Source Evaluation Under this reallocation, water supply would become the primary purpose for Lake Lanier; hydropower generation would become secondary to water supply. Consumptive Use Consumptive use is the portion of water withdrawn for use, but not returned directly to the stream. Consumptive use is not only an important consideration for tri-state issues, but is also important to the District for maintaining local stream flows and water supplies. A goal of the Plan is to minimize consumptive uses to the extent possible, while also balancing other goals and considerations. For the purposes of the WS Plan, the following water uses are considered 100 percent consumptive: Septic tank usage varies throughout the District. As a general rule, septic tank usage declines as population density increases. Currently, septic tanks account for 17 percent of the wastewater flow generated in the District, and approximately 30 percent of the District households use septic tanks. Land applying wastewater effluent is also considered a consumptive use, although there have been some discussions on the amount to which it is consumptive. Districtwide, approximately six percent of the wastewater flow from public wastewater treatment plants is currently directed to land application systems. Outdoor water use effects are seen in every utility within the District. During the summer months, outdoor water use can double the water demands observed in the winter months. On average across the District and through all customer categories, approximately 19 percent of the annual average daily water demand is used for outdoor water use. Power generation facilities using cooling towers incur evaporative losses that are a consumptive use. Currently, there are two existing power generation facilities within the District, both of which are owned and operated by the Georgia Power Company. Plant Yates, located in Coweta County, and Plant Bowen in Bartow County, both use cooling towers. By 2008, additional units at Plant Yates will use cooling towers, as will Plant McDonough located in Cobb County. The need to reduce oxygen depleting heat loads to the Chattahoochee River necessitates that cooling towers be used at Plants Yates and McDonough for these facilities to remain in operation. At this time, no construction of new power plants is planned within the District. Plant Atkinson, which was located in Cobb County, has been permanently taken out of service. The existing (2000) and future (2010) water withdrawn and consumed at these facilities is estimated to be 41 MGD and 62 MGD, respectively. Interbasin transfers (IBTs) are defined as the transfer of water from one basin to another basin. Once water is transferred to another basin, it is no longer available for use in the basin of origin. Many counties within the District straddle a ridge line between basins and have utilized IBTs for many years in order to provide water service to their residents. However, IBTs have generated more attention recently, as water supplies have become more strained. The goal of the WS Plan is to minimize IBTs, while balancing the water supply needs of both the District and downstream users. WATER SUPPLY AND WATER CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT PLAN 6-4 DATE: SEPTEMBER 2003 P:\2317-002\TASK 13\FINAL REPORT SEP. 2003\FINAL WORD\SECTION 6 WS - WATER RESOURCE ISSUES AND POTENTIAL SOURCE EVAL.DOC Section 6: Water Resources Issues and Potential Source Evaluation In-Stream Flow Protection Policy Water withdrawals affect downstream flows. Without limitations on withdrawal quantities, detrimental impacts to natural habitats and downstream users can occur. Georgia protects its water systems by mandating a minimum in-stream flow. For the past 20 years, Georgia's minimum in-stream flow policy has been based on the annual 7Q10, which is the statistical figure that reflects the lowest 7-day running average of a stream's flow with a recurrence frequency of once in ten years. In order to better protect the health of aquatic ecosystems and to protect downstream users, the DNR Board instructed EPD to establish a new minimum instream flow policy. Effective April 1, 2001, all new applications for new or expanded surface water sources are required to meet new interim minimum flow protection requirements. Applicants are required to select from one of the following three options for minimum instream flow requirements: Option 1 - Monthly 7Q10 Minimum Flow Option 2 - Site-Specific Flow Study Option 3 - Mean Annual Flow This policy is not applicable to those streams whose flows are determined by the operation of a federal reservoir, such as the Chattahoochee River below Buford Dam. The new minimum in-stream flow policies will not impact existing withdrawal permits, as these permits will be grandfathered. Existing water supply quantities will remain unchanged as long as the withdrawal quantities remain the same. Where possible and applicable, the new instream flow requirements were taken into consideration for the yield quantities used in this WS Plan. All the water supply sources included in the WS Plan to meet 2030 needs as presented in Table 2-2, are grandfathered into the previous instream flow policy. This includes the five new reservoirs included in the projected 2030 water supply of the District. Water Supply Efficiency and Reliability Water System Interconnections Water supply efficiency and reliability is enhanced through the interconnection of adjoining water systems. Encouraging interconnections between water systems in the District is particularly important in the event of a drought or emergency situation (terrorism, natural disaster, or equipment failure). Interconnections also support projected water demand growth within the District by accommodating inter-jurisdictional routine water sales. For the WS Plan, an interconnection reliability target (IRT) was established for each county to evaluate interconnection capabilities within the District in relation to projected 2030 water demands. Each county's IRT was established by taking into account essential water needs (including drinking, cooking, toilet flushing, fire fighting, and hospital use) and each county's water supply source. The IRT for each county was compared to its existing interconnection capacity to determine the adequacy of the interconnections for providing water system reliability in year 2030. Specific interconnection recommendations are presented in Section 10. WATER SUPPLY AND WATER CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT PLAN 6-5 DATE: SEPTEMBER 2003 P:\2317-002\TASK 13\FINAL REPORT SEP. 2003\FINAL WORD\SECTION 6 WS - WATER RESOURCE ISSUES AND POTENTIAL SOURCE EVAL.DOC Section 6: Water Resources Issues and Potential Source Evaluation A number of factors will need to be taken into consideration when establishing new interconnections between water systems or increasing flows through existing connections. These include the following: Chemical Compatibility: In general, the critical chemical properties for the 33 publiclyowned WTPs in the District are compatible with two exceptions. Both the DeKalb County Water System and the Cobb County-Marietta Water Authority maintain their finished water pH above 8.0 for corrosion control purposes. Systems connecting to either the DeKalb or Cobb systems for routine water sales will need to make adjustments to their treatment or operational practices. For emergency situations, these water quality differences are insignificant. Treatment Requirements: A few water systems have large industrial water customers that require the hardness, iron, and manganese levels in treated water be below typical levels. These water systems may find it more cost-effective to invest in equipment redundancy and finished water storage facilities for day-to-day operational flexibility and reliability. Assuming industrial operations are halted during extreme emergencies, interconnections with utilities providing different finished water quality can still be used to meet the essential needs. Water Quality: Transferring water between utilities will cause reversal of flow in some areas. These areas will likely experience short-term changes in the aesthetic qualities of the water caused by disturbance of sediment in the distribution pipes. This problem is primarily a nuisance; no health concerns are anticipated as long as the required disinfectant residual in the distribution system is maintained. Operating Pressure: Systems with different operating pressures are not readily able to transfer water without modifications. For many of the existing interconnections, pumping stations or pressure reducing valves are required to adjust the pressure at the connection point. Water systems will need to evaluate the available water pressure at any potential connection point, to determine the specific requirements for transferring water from one system to another. Impact on Water Withdrawal Permits: When a municipal water system applies for a water withdrawal permit from the EPD, the amount of water permitted is based on water supply needs and projected population growth for the water system's service area. If one system is providing water to another system on a routine basis, the EPD often includes Special Conditions to the permit, which may include the following: o A certain agreed-upon amount of water between the two systems to be reserved as pass-through water from the supplying system to the receiving system is specified. o Water withdrawal permit for the water provider acknowledges that it includes the receiving system's water supply allocation. o Indication whether or not this is a temporary transfer of the water supply allocation is made, and the length of the agreement between the two systems is stated. o If both water systems have existing water withdrawal permits, then modification of the permits for both systems, to reflect an additional amount to the supplying system, assuming it has adequate treatment capacity, is made by EPD. The receiving system's permit is reduced by the amount that it is obtained from the supplying system. WATER SUPPLY AND WATER CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT PLAN 6-6 DATE: SEPTEMBER 2003 P:\2317-002\TASK 13\FINAL REPORT SEP. 2003\FINAL WORD\SECTION 6 WS - WATER RESOURCE ISSUES AND POTENTIAL SOURCE EVAL.DOC Section 6: Water Resources Issues and Potential Source Evaluation o During emergency situations, the EPD may allow permits to be amended to accommodate special needs. Existing Legislative Priorities for Water Use in Droughts Nature's limitation on water supply most acutely occurs under drought conditions. Georgia was in an extreme drought from 1998 through 2002. EPD and the Pollution Prevention Assistance Division (P2AD) of DNR have recently completed the Georgia Drought Management Plan. The Drought Management Plan mandates priorities for water use during droughts, and includes pre-drought strategies as well as drought responses. A permanent odd-even outdoor watering schedule has been adopted as part of the Drought Management Plan. EPD's current regulations for competing water uses during emergency shortage situations prioritizes water use in the following order: 1. Emergency facilities for essential life support measures; 2. Domestic drinking, cooking, washing, and health related purposes; and 3. Agricultural and industrial uses. The EPD may request or order holders of both water treatment operating permits and water withdrawal permits to restrict water usage when the Director of EPD determines that such measures are necessary to protect and preserve public health and welfare, and/or aquatic communities. For example, if a water distribution system's pressure drops below 20 pounds per square inch, the Director may determine that public health is at risk, and may require water use restrictions. EPD may also restrict businesses that use large volumes of water, such as car wash facilities and lawn and garden centers, during drought periods. Water Quality Issues Water Supply Watershed Protection Water supply watershed protection programs serve to protect water resources from contaminants, thereby effectively preserving the amount of water supply available. In addition, by limiting the amount of pollution that enters the water supply, local governments can reduce the costs of treatment and help guarantee public health. The Rules for Environmental Planning Criteria, Chapter 391-3-16 were developed by DNR. They require local governments to protect water supply watersheds and groundwater recharge areas within their jurisdictions. Watershed protection plans are required when applying for or renewing, water withdrawal permits. The implementation of the District's Watershed Management Plan, which is coordinated with this WS Plan and the Long-Term Wastewater Management Plan, will improve source water quality. Proposed Groundwater Rule The proposed Groundwater Rule (GWR) specifies the appropriate use of disinfection in groundwater and addresses other components of groundwater systems to assure public health protection. The GWR may have significant impacts on some of the public groundwater systems WATER SUPPLY AND WATER CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT PLAN 6-7 DATE: SEPTEMBER 2003 P:\2317-002\TASK 13\FINAL REPORT SEP. 2003\FINAL WORD\SECTION 6 WS - WATER RESOURCE ISSUES AND POTENTIAL SOURCE EVAL.DOC Section 6: Water Resources Issues and Potential Source Evaluation in the District, depending on the source water quality. Currently, only one percent of the District's water supply is obtained from groundwater sources. However, the increase in operating costs, due to additional monitoring and disinfection requirements may make some of the existing and future groundwater sources less viable, further increasing the District's reliance on surface water. The proposed GWR is scheduled for issuance as a final regulation in late 2003. Downstream Users Residents of cities and communities downstream of the District are concerned about the quality of water for drinking, recreation, and other purposes, due to large water withdrawals and wastewater discharges occurring within the District, particularly in the Etowah and Chattahoochee River Basins. While the issues of downstream needs are not as controversial in the Ocmulgee, Oconee, and Flint River Basins, they are important and are an integral part of the WS Plan. The goal of the WS Plan is to meet projected District demands without compromising environmental standards or downstream needs. The downstream needs will be met through responsible water supply management and aggressive conservation efforts within the District. Georgia's new minimum in-stream flow policies will further protect the water supply downstream of the District. Future wastewater discharges proposed in the Long-term Wastewater Management Plan will meet or exceed EPD's water quality standards. In conjunction with the implementation of the District Watershed Management Plan, the downstream water quality is expected to improve, despite increases in discharge quantities. Emerging Contaminants Emerging contaminants, including endocrine disrupting compounds (EDCs) and pharmaceutical and personal care products (PPCPs), may become regulated contaminants in coming decades, which will have a significant impact on future treatment standards. This likely scenario was factored into comparing WS Plan alternatives and in assessing costs of alternatives. A variety of emerging contaminants are used routinely in industrial, residential, medicinal, and agricultural applications. EDCs and PPCPs can enter waterways directly after passing through wastewater treatment processes that are not designed to remove them, or may be released into the environment via waste overflow, leakage, or stormwater runoff. Very low levels of several EDCs and PPCPs compounds have been found in the Chattahoochee River and Big Creek as part of a national research project. Because some EDCs and PPCPs are not biodegradable in the environment, and also may not be removed by wastewater or drinking water treatment processes, removing them will require that both wastewater service providers and drinking water providers coordinate their efforts to monitor and control them. The addition of advanced treatment technologies to most of the District's existing water and/or wastewater treatment facilities will be necessary if removal of these contaminants is required in future regulations. Currently, most of the EDCs and PPCPs are not regulated; however, some of the contaminants are listed on EPA's Contaminant Candidate List (CCL). WATER SUPPLY AND WATER CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT PLAN 6-8 DATE: SEPTEMBER 2003 P:\2317-002\TASK 13\FINAL REPORT SEP. 2003\FINAL WORD\SECTION 6 WS - WATER RESOURCE ISSUES AND POTENTIAL SOURCE EVAL.DOC Section 6: Water Resources Issues and Potential Source Evaluation Treatment Standards Treatment standards are expected to become more stringent over the next 30 years as the current desire for higher quality drinking water continues. To date, EPA has developed a majority of the regulations that were required to be promulgated by the 1996 Safe Drinking Water Act Amendments. Two key rules remain: The Long-Term 2 Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule, which focuses on treatment and control of the microorganism Cryptosporidium; and the Stage 2 Disinfectants/Disinfection Byproducts Rule, which focuses on the long-term health effects of exposure to compounds produced by chlorine disinfection practices, used by most drinking water utilities within the District. These two rules may require significant changes in the treatment practices of many water utilities during the next 30 years. The preliminary phasing of these rules indicates the largest utilities will be required to be in compliance by 2010, with the other utilities required to comply later in the planning period. Some of the technologies that may be required by these new rules include optimization of existing chlorination practices; use of alternative oxidants and disinfectants (such as ozonation and ultraviolet (UV) disinfection); optimization of coagulation, and/or higher levels of organic precursor removals, including membranes or granular activated carbon (GAC) treatment. It was assumed that most WTPs in the District would add ozonation and GAC filtration processes. EPA is continually evaluating potentially harmful compounds in drinking water that may be regulated in the future. Based on past experience, the time it takes for a contaminant to go from being listed on the CCL to being regulated is 10 to 20 years. Because of this continuallyupdated process, additional drinking water contaminants will be regulated during the 30-year study period. It is difficult to predict the specific compounds to be regulated and the treatment technologies that may be needed to treat them. However, it is likely that water treatment plants will be forced to continually evaluate their performance and optimize existing treatment or add new technologies. These changes in treatment standards will need to be addressed in the required five-year updates to the WS Plan. Other Water Resources Planning Issues Water Supply Contingencies In identifying and recommending water supply resources for the recommended WS Plan, issues that may arise over the planning period were taken into consideration by incorporating contingencies into the WS Plan. Possible issues for which water supply contingencies could be required include the following: Faster population growth than anticipated in projections, resulting in larger water demands Population growth distributed within the District differently than anticipated. Water conservation measures falling short of anticipated demand reductions Any of the planned reservoirs are not permitted or constructed Discharges of reclaimed water to Lake Lanier restricted by legal actions Drought WATER SUPPLY AND WATER CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT PLAN 6-9 DATE: SEPTEMBER 2003 P:\2317-002\TASK 13\FINAL REPORT SEP. 2003\FINAL WORD\SECTION 6 WS - WATER RESOURCE ISSUES AND POTENTIAL SOURCE EVAL.DOC Section 6: Water Resources Issues and Potential Source Evaluation Service interruptions Long-term contingencies are maintained in the WS Plan by not relying exclusively on any single water supply option. If one approach falls short, the others can be adjusted to fill the resulting need. In addition, a small water supply buffer was maintained in each basin above the projected 2030 demand. This buffer would allow for small deviations from projections, or departures from other assumptions to be accommodated. Environmental Justice A doubling of population and wastewater flows during the next 30 years will require expansions of existing treatment facilities, and new facilities to be built in developing areas. All water users expect that long-term plans will equitably address service needs and environmental protection across the District. With the implementation of the WW Plan, the percentage of wastewater treated in minority and low income areas will decline during the next 30 years. This is due to the recommended placement of new facilities and discharges in proximity to the future growth projected to occur in urbanizing counties. Potential Source Evaluation In order to meet the projected 2030 water supply needs, new water supply sources will need to be identified and evaluated. This section identifies potential surface water, groundwater, and water reuse supply options that were evaluated in the process of developing the recommended WS Plan. Other water supply sources include the implementation of an aggressive water conservation program (see Section 8) and shared water resources among jurisdictions within the District (see Section 10). Water conservation is an important component of the water supply equation, in that it is essential for the District's existing supplies to last through the 2030 planning period. In this section, surface water supply options are evaluated and ranked based on economic and non-economic criteria. Groundwater development is discussed, including typical yields. Three types of water reuse are presented and compared using economic and non-economic factors, to determine the most appropriate approach for the District. The following is a summary of the evaluation: Based on the evaluation of all potential future water sources, the District is expected to continue to rely heavily on surface water supply sources to meet its future water demand. The reallocation of water storage from Lake Lanier and Lake Allatoona will be necessary to guarantee water supply for the District for the next 30 years and beyond. Reallocation of Lake Lanier and Lake Allatoona far outranks any other supply source in terms of cost, environmental and social impacts, feasibility, and public/intergovernmental acceptance. Groundwater currently supplies less than one percent of the District's total public water supply and is not likely to provide significant quantities of water supply for the District in the future. However, it may be developed to supplement surface water sources particularly during peak demand periods in parts of the District. WATER SUPPLY AND WATER CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT PLAN DATE: SEPTEMBER 2003 P:\2317-002\TASK 13\FINAL REPORT SEP. 2003\FINAL WORD\SECTION 6 WS - WATER RESOURCE ISSUES AND POTENTIAL SOURCE EVAL.DOC 6-10 Section 6: Water Resources Issues and Potential Source Evaluation Indirect potable reuse, or reclaimed water that is returned to water supply sources such as Lake Lanier, directly contributes to meeting future potable demands without encouraging consumptive uses such as irrigation. Potential Surface Water Sources Five planned reservoirs, summarized in Section 2, are all in the permitting process and, if constructed, will provide another 114 AADD-MGD of available yield. With the existing and planned sources, the total available surface water supply will be 1,047 AAD-MGD. To supplement the District's water supply, 28 potential surface water supply sources, including new surface water sources or expansions/reallocations of existing sources, were identified through a literature review and site search and were compared. The locations of these potential surface water sources are shown in Figures 6-2 and 6-3. The potential surface water supply sources were grouped into one of the following categories: Expansion of an existing source: Increasing the storage capacity of existing reservoirs by raising the dam elevation or the surface water elevation without structural changes (using existing freeboard for additional storage volume). Local surface water sources: Surface water sources within or adjacent to the District with a potential annual average yield of 20 MGD or less. A source was also considered local if its potential service area was limited to one county or city in the District. Regional surface water sources: Surface water sources that have a yield greater than 20 MGD and are not limited to serve a specific geographic area. For each potential surface water source, the location, storage volume, and potential yield, defined as the maximum quantity of water available during a critical drought period, were described as available from literature or from water utilities within the District. Most of the reported yields were determined based on minimum flow assumptions prior to the adoption of the new in-stream flow protection policy established by the EPD. The actual yields of these potential sources will likely be less than the reported values, due to the more stringent policies. Ranking of Potential Surface Water Sources The potential surface water sources were evaluated and ranked, based on a set of economic and non-economic criteria. The initial design analysis of each source included identification of a physical location, potential service area, water treatment plant requirements, and transmission pipeline routing. WATER SUPPLY AND WATER CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT PLAN DATE: SEPTEMBER 2003 P:\2317-002\TASK 13\FINAL REPORT SEP. 2003\FINAL WORD\SECTION 6 WS - WATER RESOURCE ISSUES AND POTENTIAL SOURCE EVAL.DOC 6-11 Legend Note: Planned water supply reservoirs currently under construction or in permitting stage not included. polit an Nort h G Metropolitan North Georgia Water Planning District Met ro t ric t eorgia Wat er Pla nning Dis 2317.001_Fig6-2.fh9 Potential Surface Water Sources Chattahoochee and Etowah River Basins Date: September 2003 Scale: N.T.S. Job No.: 2317.001 Figure 6-2 Legend Note: Planned water supply reservoirs currently under construction or in permitting stage not included. polit an Nort h G Metropolitan North Georgia Water Planning District Met ro t ric t eorgia Wat er Pla nning Dis 2317.001_Fig6-3.fh9 Potential Surface Water Sources Flint, Ocmulgee and Oconee River Basins Date: September 2003 Scale: N.T.S. Job No.: 2317.001 Figure 6-3 Section 6: Water Resources Issues and Potential Source Evaluation It should be noted that the reservoirs discussed here, and in Tables 6-1 and 6-2, are not relied upon in the WS Plan. They are presented to identify the alternative sources investigated by the District. Once the locations of the potential local and regional surface water sources were identified, potential service areas for these water supplies were evaluated. Generally, service areas near the potential sources were selected. The evaluation assumed that WTP capacity across the District would have to be increased to match the projected yield of the respective reservoirs. Upon identification of the source and destination of each alternative, potential transmission requirements were identified on the USGS topographical maps. Depending on the water supply option, routing the water from the source to the District as raw or finished water was configured. The economic evaluation compares the capital and annual operations and maintenance (O&M) costs for the potential surface water sources that were obtained from literature review or that were estimated for each alternative. The non-economic evaluation criteria were developed in order to provide an additional basis for ranking potential surface water supply sources, including the following: Present water quality Future water quality Reliability/drought storage Intergovernmental/regional acceptance Public acceptance Flooding impacts Flow regime alteration Wetlands impacts Threatened and endangered species issues Socioeconomic issues Interbasin transfer requirements Historic/archeological issues Tables 6-1 and 6-2 present the ranking of the potential local and regional surface water sources, based on economic and non-economic criteria. Of the potential regional sources, operational modifications to existing sources, such as Lake Allatoona and Lake Lanier, were ranked the highest because they had the lowest cost, and minimal environmental or other adverse impacts. Among the local sources, larger reservoirs closer to potential service areas were ranked the highest. The top ranking potential local sources included the Shoal Creek Reservoir located in Cherokee County, and a potential reservoir on Sweetwater Creek in Douglas County that will serve Fulton County residents. WATER SUPPLY AND WATER CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT PLAN DATE: SEPTEMBER 2003 P:\2317-002\TASK 13\FINAL REPORT SEP. 2003\FINAL WORD\SECTION 6 WS - WATER RESOURCE ISSUES AND POTENTIAL SOURCE EVAL.DOC 6-14 Section 6: Water Resources Issues and Potential Source Evaluation TABLE 6-1 Ranking of Potential Local Surface Water Sources Rank 1 Name Shoal Creek Reservoir (Cherokee County) Source Stream Shoal Creek Potential Yield 1 (MGD) 20.0 Potential Service Area (County) Cobb 2 Sweetwater Creek Reservoir-Option A 3 Rock Quarries 4 Boston Creek Reservoir Sweetwater Creek Long Swamp Creek Boston Creek 35.5 16.02 10.02 Fulton Cherokee, Cobb Bartow 5 Turkey Creek Reservoir Apalachee River 10.3 Walton 6 Big Flat Creek Reservoir Alcovy River 11.8 Walton 7 Sweetwater Creek Reservoir-Option C Sweetwater Creek 42.7 Fulton 8 Anneewakee Creek Reservoir Anneewakee Creek 28.0 Douglas 9 Walnut Creek Reservoir Walnut Creek 20.5 Henry 10 Pelham Creek Reservoir Whitewater Creek 3.0 Fayette 11 Indian Creek Reservoir Apalachee River 9.0 Walton 12 Glades Reservoir3 Chattahoochee Tributary 4.5 Hall 1Yield may be lower as a result of the new minimum in-stream flow policies. 2 Summer only. 3Cost information was not available and therefore this reservoir could not be ranked. TABLE 6-2 Ranking of Potential Regional Sources Rank 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Name Reallocation of Lake Lanier Reallocation of Lake Allatoona Intake Below Peachtree Creek or Whitesburg Lake Sinclair Lake Jackson Sharp Mountain Creek West Point Reservoir Source Stream Chattahoochee River Potential Yield 1 (MGD) 705.02 Etowah River 200.02 Chattahoochee River Oconee River South River, Yellow River, and Alcovy River Sharp Mountain Creek Chattahoochee River 100.0 100.0 100.0 30.0 100.0 Potential Service Area (County) Cobb, DeKalb, Forsyth, Fulton, Gwinnett, Hall Bartow, Cherokee, Cobb, Douglas, Fulton, Forsyth, Paulding Coweta, Douglas, Fulton Clayton, Henry, Rockdale, Walton Clayton, Fayette, Henry, Rockdale Cherokee, Cobb Clayton, Coweta, Fayette, Henry WATER SUPPLY AND WATER CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT PLAN DATE: SEPTEMBER 2003 P:\2317-002\TASK 13\FINAL REPORT SEP. 2003\FINAL WORD\SECTION 6 WS - WATER RESOURCE ISSUES AND POTENTIAL SOURCE EVAL.DOC 6-15 Section 6: Water Resources Issues and Potential Source Evaluation Potential Yield 1 Potential Service Rank Name Source Stream (MGD) Area (County) 8 Lake Oconee Apalachee River, Oconee River, etc. 100.0 Clayton, Henry, Rockdale, Walton 9 Long Swamp Creek Reservoir Long Swamp Creek 35.0 Cherokee, Cobb 10 Richland Creek Reservoir Etowah River 40.0 Paulding, Cobb,Bartow 11 Pump from Etowah River to Lake LanierOption 2 Etowah River 58.0 Cobb, DeKalb, Fulton, Gwinnett 12 Settingdown Creek Reservoir Settingdown Creek 25.0 Cherokee, Cobb, Forsyth 13 Apalachee River Reservoir -Site 2 Apalachee River 35.6 Walton, Gwinnett Cherokee, Cobb, 14 Shoal Creek Reservoir (Dawson County) Shoal Creek 30.0 DeKalb, Fulton, Gwinnett 15 Canton Reservoir Etowah River 144.0 Cherokee, Cobb, Fulton 16 Big Cedar Creek Reservoir Big Cedar Creek 44.0 Cobb 17 Apalachee River Reservoir -Site 1 Apalachee River 18.1 Walton, Gwinnett 18 Flint River Reservoir-Option 1 Flint River 160.0 Clayton, Fayette, Henry 19 Flint River Reservoir-Option 2 Flint River 390.0 Clayton, Fayette, Henry Cherokee, Cobb, 20 Gilmer Reservoir Etowah River 57.0 DeKalb, Fulton, Gwinnett 1Yield may be lower as a result of the new minimum in-stream flow policies. 2Yields as estimated for the ACF/ACT basins. The reallocation of Lakes Lanier and Allatoona is an essential element of the recommended WS Plan. Other potential reservoirs identified were not used in the recommended WS Plan as other considerations, including environmental impacts and permit requirements, were balanced with water supply needs. However, the development of reservoirs described in this section may be required prior to 2030 if any of the underlying assumptions of the WS Plan are not implemented, such as water conservation. Additional analyses of these reservoirs will be required to establish safe yields for recommended reservoir sites using the new minimum instream flow requirements. More stringent environmental requirements for reservoir permitting, as well as increasing urbanization of the watersheds of reservoir sites, may make some reservoir alternatives infeasible in the future. Potential Groundwater Sources Groundwater currently supplies less than one percent of the District's total public water supply and is not likely to provide significant quantities of water supply for the District. Development of future groundwater sources in parts of the District is highly unlikely, due to bedrock geology and existing land use. The available yield and water quality of groundwater are highly variable within the District. Although groundwater yields are typically low in existing wells in the District, high-yielding wells could potentially be located through a systematic exploration and development program that will supplement existing and future water supply in the District, especially in the outlying counties. Groundwater treatment requirements within the District WATER SUPPLY AND WATER CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT PLAN DATE: SEPTEMBER 2003 P:\2317-002\TASK 13\FINAL REPORT SEP. 2003\FINAL WORD\SECTION 6 WS - WATER RESOURCE ISSUES AND POTENTIAL SOURCE EVAL.DOC 6-16 Section 6: Water Resources Issues and Potential Source Evaluation range from disinfection-only systems to very complex treatment systems for removal of iron, sulfate, manganese, and gases such as radon. Municipalities interested in using groundwater as a supplemental water supply source should conduct detailed studies and pump tests today to determine the availability and viability of developing groundwater resources. Future land use and urbanization trends may result in a larger percentage of the District becoming unsuitable for groundwater development. The recommended WS Plan does not include groundwater supply sources as a means for meeting the projected water demands. Water Reuse Securing adequate water supplies for future growth, and adequately treating wastewater to preserve water quality in receiving water bodies, present major challenges and opportunities for the District. One possible way to address both of these issues is through water reuse. Water Reuse Terms Over the next 30 years, the application of water reclamation technology is expected to expand the reuse of water. There are many types of water reuse, and Table 6-3 defines those that pertain to this evaluation. TABLE 6-3 Water Reuse Terminology1 Term Water Reclamation Water Reuse Planned Reuse Incidental Reuse Direct Potable Reuse Indirect Potable Reuse Definition Treatment of wastewater to make it reusable for one or multiple applications. Produces reclaimed water. Beneficial use of reclaimed water, such as for potable water, irrigation, cooling, washing, and environmental purposes. Deliberate use of treated effluent discharged to a natural environment from which water is withdrawn for use. Discharge of treated effluent to headwaters of water supply. Beneficial use of highly treated reclaimed water as drinking water supply with contained transfer from reclamation plant to the distribution system. Direct potable reuse is not currently practiced in the United States, due to a lack of regulatory acceptance and public confidence with its safety. However, this type of reuse continues to be researched with demonstration facilities to evaluate the effectiveness of systems and necessary requirements for implementation. Beneficial use of reclaimed water as drinking water after it is returned to the natural environment (groundwater reservoir, storage reservoir, or stream) and mixes with the receiving waters for an extended period of time. Incidental indirect potable reuse is occurring in virtually every major river system that receives discharges of treated wastewater. In areas with limited water resources, indirect potable reuse is a viable option to help maximize the use of water resources. With planned indirect potable reuse, wastewater is treated to a much higher quality than is typical for unplanned indirect potable reuse water, when the effluent is discharged to surface water that is used downstream as a potable water source. Planned indirect potable reuse has been in practice for more than thirty years in the United States. WATER SUPPLY AND WATER CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT PLAN DATE: SEPTEMBER 2003 P:\2317-002\TASK 13\FINAL REPORT SEP. 2003\FINAL WORD\SECTION 6 WS - WATER RESOURCE ISSUES AND POTENTIAL SOURCE EVAL.DOC 6-17 Section 6: Water Resources Issues and Potential Source Evaluation Term Non-potable Reuse Water Recycling Definition Beneficial use of reclaimed water for purposes other than potable water supply, which includes; agricultural and landscaping irrigation, industrial process, fire protection, air conditioning, and toilet flushing. Non-potable reuse includes urban water reuse, which is covered by the Guidelines for Water Reclamation and Urban Water Reuse established by the EPD in February 2002. Reclamation of effluent generated by a given user for onsite reuse by the same user (e.g., industrial water recycling). Greywater Wastewater of domestic strength and consistency that has not come in contact with toilet or urinal waste, typically the water from bathtubs, sinks, or washing machines. 1 Adapted from Management Practices for Non-potable Water Reuse, Water Environment Research Foundation, 2001. Regulatory Guidelines Each type of reuse calls for a different level of treatment. The most common treatment parameters imposed for water reclamation are biochemical oxygen demand (BOD5), total organic carbon (TOC), turbidity, total suspended solids (TSS), fecal coliform, nitrogen, and chlorine residual. California and Florida are the national leaders in water reuse regulations. Currently, Georgia does not have regulations for indirect potable reuse, but does have limits for non-potable reuse where human contact is unrestricted, such as golf courses or parks. For indirect potable reuse, Florida requires secondary treatment, filtration and high-level disinfection. California adds coagulation and clarification processes to the Florida requirements. In addition to establishing quality standards, requirements are placed on the reliability and redundancy for the reuse water treatment processes. The use of multiple barriers is one way of enhancing the overall reliability of a reclaimed water production facility. Existing Reuse Applications in the District Incidental indirect potable reuse is currently being practiced in the District. Several major water supply intakes on the Chattahoochee River are currently located downstream of treated effluent discharges. Gwinnett and Clayton Counties are practicing planned indirect potable reuse. Existing non-potable reuse applications in the District generally belong to one of the following two categories: Irrigation with secondary-treated effluent in restricted areas or land application/treatment of wastewater; and Irrigation with high quality treated effluent in unrestricted areas such as golf courses and parks. Non-potable reuse and land application of wastewater are considered 100 percent consumptive use for the purposes of this Plan. However, the reclaimed water from at least one treatment system in the District recharges the potable water supply via soil percolation. WATER SUPPLY AND WATER CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT PLAN DATE: SEPTEMBER 2003 P:\2317-002\TASK 13\FINAL REPORT SEP. 2003\FINAL WORD\SECTION 6 WS - WATER RESOURCE ISSUES AND POTENTIAL SOURCE EVAL.DOC 6-18 Section 6: Water Resources Issues and Potential Source Evaluation Non-Potable Reuse Demand Estimates Non-potable reuse could be used to offset potable demand for irrigation and industrial uses. To estimate non-potable reuse demands, the irrigation and industrial demand components for the entire District were obtained from the Least Cost Planning Decision Support System (DSS) Model, as discussed in Section 5 of this report. The AAD potable water demand that could potentially be offset through non-potable reuse was estimated to be 71 MGD, which includes 58 MGD in irrigation demand and 13 MGD in industrial demand. The non-potable reuse demand of 71 MGD represents less than 7 percent of the District's total 2030 AADD. The following paragraphs describe the methods used to estimate non-potable reuse demands. Urban irrigation demand, also known as non-residential irrigation demand, was estimated for the District. In the future, single-family residential irrigation demands could be met with reclaimed water; however, due to the expense associated with this option, it is not likely to occur on a large scale over the next 30 years. Not all of the urban irrigation demand can be met through non-potable reuse due to a number of factors, including proximity to a reuse corridor, the use of private irrigation facilities (such as small lakes or groundwater wells), or the small size of some parks or open spaces that can make the cost of infrastructure prohibitive. The 2030 AAD urban irrigation demand that could potentially be supplied by non-potable reuse was estimated to be 58 MGD. Most parks and golf courses are only irrigated in the spring and summer months, as the irrigation demand is usually very low during winter months. Replacing potable water with reclaimed water for urban irrigation would have a small, but positive impact on demand reduction, especially during peak demand months. Because of the abundant rainfall in the region, demand reduction through urban irrigation is best treated as a way to lower potable water use during peak demand months, thereby conserving potable water for other types of consumption. For non-potable reuse to be beneficial it needs to replace (i.e., conserve) potable water use. If additional irrigation water demand is created by the presence of an inexpensive non-potable reuse water supply, then not all reuse water will be replacing potable water demand. It should also be noted that during drought periods, irrigation bans are the first water conservation measure to be undertaken by many District municipalities. This means that reuse for irrigation in such a period would not be replacing potable water use. Industrial demand for reclaimed water was also estimated. Industrial demands include potable water use, as well as process water use at industrial customer locations. In order to estimate the portion of the total industrial water demand that could be met through reclaimed water, data from the 1999 ARC Water Supply Source Evaluation was used. The industries included in the study represented a wide variety of process types. Individual industries were contacted as part of that study to discuss the amount of water demands that could be met through reclaimed water. Based on this information, the 2030 AAD industrial demand for reclaimed water was estimated to be 13 MGD. Indirect Potable Reuse Estimates Potential indirect potable reuse quantities were estimated by considering the amount of wastewater discharged, required minimum in-stream flow requirements, and downstream WATER SUPPLY AND WATER CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT PLAN DATE: SEPTEMBER 2003 P:\2317-002\TASK 13\FINAL REPORT SEP. 2003\FINAL WORD\SECTION 6 WS - WATER RESOURCE ISSUES AND POTENTIAL SOURCE EVAL.DOC 6-19 Section 6: Water Resources Issues and Potential Source Evaluation water withdrawals. Based on preliminary calculations, the amount of reclaimed water available for indirect potable reuse could range from 40 MGD to 125 MGD AADD, or 4 to 12 percent of the projected 2030 AAD demand for the District. The EPD has imposed limits on the amount of indirect potable reuse that Lake Lanier can accept. The current limit is 92 MGD on a maximum monthly basis, with a phosphorus level of 0.13 milligrams per liter (mg/L). A larger quantity of reclaimed water could be accepted if more stringent phosphorus limits could be met. The costeffectiveness of indirect potable reuse decreases significantly as the discharge quantity of reclaimed water exceeds 120 MGD into Lake Lanier. This is due to the stringent nutrient limits (phosphorus for Lake Lanier) in the receiving water body, and the resulting advanced treatment levels that are required to achieve water quality standards. Comparison of Water Reuse Options A screening analysis of the three major types of reuse: non-potable, indirect potable, and direct potable, was performed. Economic and non-economic criteria were used to compare the three water reuse options so that the most suitable water reuse option for the District could be selected. The non-economic criteria included the following: Health risks Reliability Minimize consumptive use Regulatory acceptance Public acceptance District/Intergovernmental acceptance Reduction of potable demand The capital and O&M costs for a reuse project vary depending on the type of reuse application, treatment processes applied, and effluent quality standards. In general, indirect potable reuse is less expensive than the direct potable reuse applications, because the treatment standards are less stringent. Non-potable reuse could be more expensive than indirect potable reuse, because it requires a separate distribution system to convey the reclaimed water to the end users and may also require the installation of irrigation systems. Based on the evaluation, indirect potable reuse is the preferred water reuse option. Indirect potable reuse is more cost effective, provides flexibility in meeting future water demands, and does not encourage consumptive use. Regulatory acceptance of indirect potable reuse is high, given that such systems have already been approved in the State. District/intergovernmental acceptance is also expected to be high, based on feedback from TCC and BAC members. Direct potable reuse is not currently practiced in the United States, due to a lack of regulatory acceptance and public confidence with its safety. Non-potable reuse is currently practiced in the District in the form of golf course irrigation, industrial process water, and other urban irrigation. For indirect potable reuse, discharge of reclaimed water to a lake or reservoir is preferable to the discharge of water to a river or stream. The water withdrawal credit is 100 percent when the reclaimed water is discharged to a lake or reservoir, assuming that these water bodies are capable of storing the discharge. When discharging to a river or stream, downstream water WATER SUPPLY AND WATER CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT PLAN DATE: SEPTEMBER 2003 P:\2317-002\TASK 13\FINAL REPORT SEP. 2003\FINAL WORD\SECTION 6 WS - WATER RESOURCE ISSUES AND POTENTIAL SOURCE EVAL.DOC 6-20 Section 6: Water Resources Issues and Potential Source Evaluation withdrawals and minimum in-stream flow levels can lower the amount of water withdrawal credit available. Therefore, the preferred option is to discharge reclaimed water to a water supply reservoir or lake. Lake Lanier and Lake Allatoona are two likely choices for the discharge of reclaimed water. However, in the Etowah River Basin, water supply exceeds demand over the next 30 years. Therefore, the need to discharge reclaimed water to increase supply in Lake Allatoona during the next 30 years is not as significant. The Chattahoochee River Basin does have a water supply shortfall and could greatly benefit from the additional water supply from water reclamation. Conclusions All water supply issues presented in this section are important to the development and use of water resources and will remain so over the next 30 years. The WS Plan's 5-year updates will need to revisit these issues and assess their future impact. The reallocation of water storage at Lakes Lanier and Allatoona is an essential component of the recommended WS Plan. Other potential local and regional reservoirs identified were not included in the recommended WS Plan, but may be required in the future, particularly if any of the underlying assumptions are not realized (such as water conservation, not building planned reservoirs, higher growth rates). However, urbanization of the region, environmental impacts, and more stringent permit requirements make these surface water sources more difficult to construct. The availability of groundwater supplies within the District is limited and as a result, groundwater sources were not included in the recommended WS Plan. Water reuse in the form of indirect potable reuse plays a significant role in meeting the projected 2030 water demands, as does the aggressive water conservation program outlined in Section 8. WATER SUPPLY AND WATER CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT PLAN DATE: SEPTEMBER 2003 P:\2317-002\TASK 13\FINAL REPORT SEP. 2003\FINAL WORD\SECTION 6 WS - WATER RESOURCE ISSUES AND POTENTIAL SOURCE EVAL.DOC 6-21 Section 7 Alternatives Development and Evaluation A step-wise decision process was used to develop the Water Supply and Conservation Management Plan (WS Plan). This approach was designed to facilitate an open process that focused on specific District goals for water resource management, maximized the use of existing information, and assured completion within the schedule mandated in the law establishing the District. The water and wastewater alternatives were developed in conjunction with one another to account for the interdependence between the water and wastewater alternatives. Public Participation The District Plan was developed with extensive public involvement, as is appropriate for a regional planning effort. Opportunities for participation were focused on the TCC and the BACs, which met routinely with the planning consultants during development of the plan. Three topics that the TCC and BACs contributed heavily to were: Development of the policy goals; Determination of the policy-goal criteria; and Consideration of the theme-based alternatives. Further participation was encouraged through the District's web site, www.northgeorgiawater.com. Background planning work was posted on the web site as it was prepared and became available for public review. Comments to the information on the web site were directed to ARC, which relayed them to the planning consultants. Evaluation Criteria Development The District's starting point for developing all three management plans was identifying policy goals (shown in Figure 7-1). The next step was to develop criteria related to each policy goal. Three categories of criteria were developed to evaluate water and wastewater solutions at various points throughout the management plan development process: Screening Criteria Evaluation Criteria Implementation Criteria WATER SUPPLY AND WATER CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT PLAN 7-1 DATE: SEPTEMBER 2003 P:\2317-002\Task 13\Final Report Sep. 2003\Final Word\Section 7 WS- Alternatives Development and Evaluation Criteria.doc Section 7: Alternatives Development and Evaluation A stakeholder process developed these criteria to identify the parameters that comprise a desired solution. Each criterion was related to a specific policy goal (Figure 7-1) and was assigned a metric to determine how well an alternative or scenario addressed the planning goal. Some criteria are numeric because the metric can be determined quantitatively by calculations. Other criteria are qualitative, requiring informed reviews to be made. FIGURE 7-1 Policy Goals and Evaluation Criteria Stepped Process for Developing and Evaluating Solutions Next, a methodology was established for developing the water and wastewater solutions. The following key steps were identified to lead to the recommended management plans for the District: 1. Developing and screening a range of alternatives; 2. Combining screened theme-based alternatives into management solutions; WATER SUPPLY AND WATER CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT PLAN 7-2 DATE: SEPTEMBER 2003 P:\2317-002\Task 13\Final Report Sep. 2003\Final Word\Section 7 WS- Alternatives Development and Evaluation Criteria.doc Section 7: Alternatives Development and Evaluation 3. Evaluating solutions and presenting the recommended solution; and 4. Developing the implementation plan for the recommended solution. The intent of the evaluation process was to objectively compare alternative solutions. This approach helped to eliminate bias towards any particular alternative. The evaluation process narrowed the range of alternatives using the screening, evaluation, and implementation criteria. Each level of evaluation involved an increased level of detail developed for the most worthy alternatives. Step 1: Screening a Range of Alternatives Using the policy goals and planning objectives, a range of potential alternatives was identified, with input from the TCCs and BACs. The alternatives were based on management concepts or themes that were developed to address each objective. For example, to address wastewater capacity needs, one alternative would be to build one centralized treatment facility in each basin. In this stage of the solution development, the focus was on developing capital improvement alternatives to meet the needs for 2030. However, the development of nontechnology approaches that could contribute to managing the District's water resources was also performed. Eight theme-based alternatives were discussed with the TCC at the September and October 2002 meetings. After considering the comments and insights provided by the TCC and BACs and applying the evaluation criteria, selected theme-based alternatives that merited further development were identified and are listed as follows: Ideas for Maximizing the Use of Existing Facilities were improved, based on the input from reviews and discussions with TCC members and District staff. This solution would rely primarily on existing facilities and plans, would fit easily within the existing system of utilities in the District, and would have a framework in place for implementation. Centralizing facilities would provide opportunities for consolidation of existing facilities in the urbanized areas, as well as the opportunity to establish regional facilities in less developed areas expected to grow significantly by 2030. Growth and higher levels of treatment will require expansions and improvements to many water and wastewater facilities. The underlying assumption is that consolidating facilities will yield savings in capital and operating costs over the long term. A cost effective solution for meeting these needs requires finding opportunities to consolidate facilities and to reduce the number of facilities that must undergo renovation and modification over the next 30 years. Both Basin Self-sufficiency and Reduce Consumptive Losses compared favorably versus the criteria, as they had components aimed at minimizing interbasin transfers and carefully used the proposed allocations from Lake Allatoona and Lake Lanier. They also included reuse of reclaimed water to meet future water supply needs. WATER SUPPLY AND WATER CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT PLAN 7-3 DATE: SEPTEMBER 2003 P:\2317-002\Task 13\Final Report Sep. 2003\Final Word\Section 7 WS- Alternatives Development and Evaluation Criteria.doc Section 7: Alternatives Development and Evaluation Step 2: Combining Screened Theme-Based Alternatives into Management Solutions Using the screened theme-based alternatives identified in Step 1, three potential solutions were developed for comparison: Current Plans: This solution was based on the existing jurisdictions' plans to provide service within county boundaries or existing service areas, with the continued use of existing infrastructure and expansions, as needed. The individual utilities' plans were combined into a comprehensive plan to meet projected 2030 demands, within the constraints of the water resources in the District. Consolidated Expansion: This solution was the greatest departure from the Current Plans option. It was based on achieving long-term cost effectiveness by using existing infrastructure investments and focusing expansions and new capacity requirements at fewer, more regionalized plants. It also set the stage for meeting the growing needs beyond 2030. This solution emphasized an approach to providing service that recognized, but was not constrained by, existing service arrangements and a balanced use of the available water resources. Basin Water Resources: This solution was driven by basin dynamics. As with Current Plans, Basin Water Resources relied on existing facilities, but rearranged some of the service areas to achieve a better balance in its use of the available water supplies in the District. This solution emphasized limiting changes to the current interbasin transfers, based on taking water supply from the basin where the service is provided, and returning wastewater to its source basin. These three solutions were presented at the November 2002 TCC meeting and at the December 2002 BAC meetings. Based on the feedback received from the TCC and BACs, the potential solutions were revised. In addition, the Recommended Solution was developed, based on both the feedback received and an evaluation of the potential solutions. In developing the Recommended Solution, the best pieces of potential solutions were combined into a hybrid solution. The Recommended Solution combines the portions of each of the shortlisted solutions that scored well using the evaluation criteria. By design, this process resulted in a Recommended Solution that scored higher than any of the other solutions. Step 3: Evaluating Solutions and Presenting the Recommended Solution Following Step 2, each of the four solutions was again evaluated using the evaluation and implementation criteria. During this step, both the economic and non-economic factors included in the evaluation criteria were considered. Following this level of evaluation, solutions were scored and ranked (Table 7-1). The highest scoring solution was chosen as the Recommended Solution. WATER SUPPLY AND WATER CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT PLAN 7-4 DATE: SEPTEMBER 2003 P:\2317-002\Task 13\Final Report Sep. 2003\Final Word\Section 7 WS- Alternatives Development and Evaluation Criteria.doc Section 7: Alternatives Development and Evaluation TABLE 7-1 Results of Evaluation of the Four Alternatives Rank 1. 2. 3. 4. Alternative Recommended Solution Consolidated Expansion Basin Water Resources Current Plans Score (out of 95 possible points) 73 70 61 54 Step 4: Developing the Implementation Plan for the Recommended Solution Once the recommended solution was identified, the implementation plan was developed. At several TCC and BAC meetings, feedback was solicited to help identify implementation issues for the WS Plan. Based on the feedback received, a summary of issues was prepared and used as a basis for developing the non-capital strategies incorporated into the Implementation Plan. The Implementation Plan suggests a series of actions for the state, regional, and local officials and residents of the 16-county District to undertake. It also addresses key requirements for the District that are mandated in Senate Bill 130, and the planning standards established by EPD. WATER SUPPLY AND WATER CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT PLAN 7-5 DATE: SEPTEMBER 2003 P:\2317-002\Task 13\Final Report Sep. 2003\Final Word\Section 7 WS- Alternatives Development and Evaluation Criteria.doc Section 8 Water Conservation Program Water conservation is essential to meeting projected District water demands. By the year 2030, the planned level of water conservation could reduce demands by approximately 136 MGD, or 11 percent District-wide. This can be achieved through more efficient indoor and outdoor water use, and reduction of water losses by utilities through system leakage. Recommended Actions and Milestones Implementing the recommended plan for water conservation requires new policies, new laws, and new responsibilities for utilities and consumers. Successful implementation will be facilitated by broad education and public awareness. A phasing plan for the water conservation measures is given in Section 17. Several actions must be initiated immediately and closely monitored for their effectiveness. These actions are shown in Figure 8-1. If the District is not completely successful in attaining the planned level of conservation in the early years, then additional conservation actions may be needed, or additional water supplies will need to be secured. The goal of the water conservation programs described in this section is to reduce water use without being punitive. With this in mind, it should be noted that other water conservation actions, not included in the WS Plan, may be implemented by District water providers, at the discretion of the District. The water conservation actions outlined in this section are intended to apply to water consumers within the 16 District counties. Some areas outside the District will be served from water sources within District. The water consumers in these areas outside of the District will not be required by the District to fulfill the conservation requirements outlined here. Water Conservation Action No. 1 - Establish conservation pricing by all District utilities. All District utilities are required by EPD Planning Standards to implement water conservation pricing by January 1, 2004. In order to meet this requirement, all utilities must, at a minimum, institute a uniform pricing structure. A uniform pricing structure requires charging a uniform rate for every gallon purchased. The goal of conservation pricing is to reduce excessive discretionary water use, especially outdoor irrigation, by making water use increasingly more expensive. Some key elements of conservation pricing are low fixed monthly charges and high commodity use charges, as well as informative monthly billing, to ensure that customers are aware of their water use in time to make changes to their behavior. WATER SUPPLY AND WATER CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT PLAN 8-1 DATE: SEPTEMBER 2003 P:\2317-002\TASK 13\FINAL REPORT SEP. 2003\FINAL WORD\SECTION 8 WS- WATER CONSERVATION PROGRAM.DOC Section 8: Water Conservation Program Seven of the District's utilities will need to convert their rate structures from declining block to uniform or tiered pricing by 2004. To meet year 2030 conservation goals, all District utilities should implement at least a 3-tiered rate structure by 2006. The following guidelines should be used to define this multi-tier rate for residential and commercial customers: The first tier is typically designed to include up to 125 percent of the average winter use. For example, single-family residential winter use would typically be approximately 200 gallons per account per day, or 6,000 gallons per account per month. The specific use will vary by provider across the District. The second tier is defined by the bounds of the first and third tiers, and the rate for this tier should be at least 25 percent above the first tier rate. The third tier would be determined by a rate study, and would contain the highest 5-10 percent of customers, who typically use 10-20 percent of the total volume of water used. The billing rate for this tier should be at least 200 percent of the billing rate for the first tier. Certain industrial / commercial / institutional water users may need to have their individual systems analyzed to determine appropriate base and tier levels. In order to meet the 2006 milestone, each water provider should perform a rate analysis that includes conservation pricing, to determine what percent of customers and volume will fall into each tier. A revenue analysis will also be needed, for the following reasons: To determine the rates to assign each tier To determine the effect on the revenue stream To maintain fair and equitable billing rates Utilities may elect to use additional revenues generated from conservation pricing for implementation of other water conservation measures. Water Conservation Action No. 2 - Enact legislation to require plumbing retrofits on home resales. To speed the conversion toward efficient plumbing fixtures, upon the sale of a home (resale), new state legislation is needed to require that water-saving plumbing fixtures be installed and that a certification be completed to show the plumbing meets current codes for new buildings. These codes require: Toilets not to exceed 1.6 gallons per flush 2.5 gallon per minute showerheads 2.2 gallon per minute faucet aerators The certificates will be a part of the home sale closing process. One option to avoid interference with escrow closure, in the event the seller did not complete the certification, is to require the buyer or seller to submit a fixed dollar amount per bathroom to the appropriate water provider at the time of closure. Upon completion of the certification of low flow fixtures by the buyer, refund of the deposit to the buyer occurs. If the retrofit were not accomplished within 6 months, the buyer's water bill would carry a surcharge until the work is done. This method has been implemented successfully elsewhere. WATER SUPPLY AND WATER CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT PLAN 8-2 DATE: SEPTEMBER 2003 P:\2317-002\TASK 13\FINAL REPORT SEP. 2003\FINAL WORD\SECTION 8 WS- WATER CONSERVATION PROGRAM.DOC Section 8: Water Conservation Program A new state law is needed to implement this requirement across the District. Water Conservation Action No. 3 - Enact legislation to require low-flush urinals for new industrial, commercial and institutional buildings. To speed the installation of ultra low-flow plumbing fixtures, additional or revised plumbing codes are needed that require new institutional, commercial, and industrial buildings to install 0.5 gpf urinals in new construction. A new state law is needed to implement this requirement across the District. The State should lead by example in this measure, by retrofitting all State buildings in the District, where the type of existing fixture makes this feasible. Local governments and federal agencies should consider following suit. Water Conservation Action No. 4 Enact legislation to require rain sensor shut-off switches on new irrigation systems. To reduce wasted irrigation water, establish regulations requiring rain sensor irrigation shut-off switches on all new irrigation systems both residential and non-residential. A new state law is needed to implement this requirement across the District. Water Conservation Action No. 5 Require sub-unit meters in new multi-family buildings. Local ordinances should be adopted to require that all new multi-family buildings (i.e. apartments, town homes, condominiums) be built with individual water meters that bill for water service, based on volume of use. Local ordinances for this purpose are authorized by the Official Code of Georgia, 12-5-180.1. The billing for water use can be accomplished by either the water provider or by a private, third party, such as the development owner. This measure could also be enacted through legislation. However, if implemented locally, the District could develop model ordinances for consideration by jurisdictions, so there is consistency in this requirement across the District. Water Conservation Action No. 6 - Assess and reduce water system leakage. Water providers must identify methods to reduce leakage in their systems, and to reduce unbilled water. Each water provider should perform a distribution system water audit based on the International Water Association (IWA) methodology, in order to maintain uniform assessments of leakage and set targets at the economic level of leakage. Further information on the IWA Methodology can be found at the IWA website, http://www.iwahq.org.uk/. Water Conservation Action No. 7 - Conduct residential water audits. Water providers will begin or expand a program to provide water audits (indoor and outdoor use) to residential customers, following the adoption of conservation pricing and subsequent rate increases. The largest 25 percent of water users should be targeted to evaluate watersaving measures, and audits should be made available to customers who complain about high water bills. The Pollution Prevention Assistance Division (P2AD) of the DNR can be used to train and/or certify auditors in performing the water audits. Water providers could use prequalified contractors to perform the audits, which could reduce the providers' long-term costs. WATER SUPPLY AND WATER CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT PLAN 8-3 DATE: SEPTEMBER 2003 P:\2317-002\TASK 13\FINAL REPORT SEP. 2003\FINAL WORD\SECTION 8 WS- WATER CONSERVATION PROGRAM.DOC Section 8: Water Conservation Program Water Conservation Action No. 8 - Distribute low-flow retrofit kits to residential users. Water providers will begin or expand a program to distribute low-flow retrofit kits to customers. These kits could include low-flow showerheads, faucet aerators, and other applicable retrofit items. The kits would be distributed to the portion of the service areas that have pre-1992 homes. Water Conservation Action No. 9 - Conduct commercial water audits. Water providers will begin or expand a program to provide water audits (indoor and outdoor use) to commercial customers. This audit will include a feasibility report that outlines changes to process and operations to reduce water usage. The Pollution Prevention Assistance Division (P2AD) of the DNR can be used to train and/or certify auditors in performing the water audits. Pre-qualified contractors could be identified that the water providers could use to perform the audits, which could reduce the providers' long-term costs. Water Conservation Action No. 10 Implement education and public awareness plan. Public education is critical to achieving public cooperation and support of water conservation goals. The District and each water provider must increase their public information programs. The education and public awareness plan, as described in Section 16, is the means to solicit the support. District-wide public outreach and education will be necessary to meet the legislated mandate to reach 75 percent to 90 percent of the District's population in the first 5 years. Water Conservation Action No. 11 Establish review and oversight of water conservation implementation and performance. Because of the importance of successful implementation of timely conservation measures and the economies of scale from working together, the District can be very helpful in facilitating, guiding, and managing the implementation process by water providers and others. The goal is to achieve the water savings projected in this plan in a cost-effective manner. Regional coordination of water conservation efforts, tracking water conservation progress, providing technical assistance to District water providers, bulk purchasing of conservation materials, coordinating outsourcing contractor bids for lower bulk costs, conducting public education, and researching and evaluating new water conservation measures are among the roles the District could provide. Specific duties the District could perform include: The District could assist in developing water use models for water providers to track their water use over time by customer class. Providers could use monthly summary water billing data to show demand reductions over time. Water use reductions and/or increases would be explained. They could make this information public. The District could develop a reporting system to gauge implementation activities and progress for measures by the water providers. An Internet-based reporting system could be used. Water providers could use this system to report annual progress to the District. After information is checked and verified, it could be made public. The District could provide a forum for negotiated changes to the list, scope, and implementation schedule for recommended measures. They could approve the replacement of currently recommended measures with those that are "at least as WATER SUPPLY AND WATER CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT PLAN 8-4 DATE: SEPTEMBER 2003 P:\2317-002\TASK 13\FINAL REPORT SEP. 2003\FINAL WORD\SECTION 8 WS- WATER CONSERVATION PROGRAM.DOC Section 8: Water Conservation Program effective as" where the needs arise, on a case-by-case basis. They could also approve exemptions where implementation of a certain measure is found not to be cost-effective. The District could research and evaluate new and innovative conservation measures, and periodically update and modify the recommended measures to maintain water use reduction goals. The District could offer implementation guidance on measures, and provide or arrange for technical assistance and training to water provider conservation staff. The District could develop a list of qualified contractors and make them available to retail providers for measures such as audits. The District could procure materials, such as retrofit kits or public education materials, which would enable lower unit costs due to volume discounts. The District could publish an annual report that documents progress, explains program changes and variations, lists needed resources, recommends actions by other agencies, and recommends goals for the next year. The District should use a dual approach to funding the conservation activities. The District should aggressively pursue state and federal funding and use in-kind services, such as donated staff, as much as possible. For remaining expenses, the District could establish a dues structure, so that those who benefit from this coordination and assistance would pay a fair share. It has been clearly established that conserving water, in the amount projected in the WS Plan, is much less expensive than building treatment capacity; therefore, these activities should be funded along with the conservation measure themselves. FIGURE 8-1 Priority Water Conservation Measures WATER SUPPLY AND WATER CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT PLAN 8-5 DATE: SEPTEMBER 2003 P:\2317-002\TASK 13\FINAL REPORT SEP. 2003\FINAL WORD\SECTION 8 WS- WATER CONSERVATION PROGRAM.DOC Section 9 Planned Water Supply Facilities Water supply sources within the District barely meet the projected demands for 2030. The District will continue to rely upon Lake Lanier and the Chattahoochee River, Lake Allatoona and the Etowah River, and smaller streams and reservoirs within the Etowah, Flint, Ocmulgee, and Oconee River Basins. By law, the District is not allowed to import water from outside basins, which compels efficient water use and management of the existing sources. Because environmental permitting constraints make siting and constructing new reservoirs so difficult, it is possible that no new reservoirs will be developed in the District beyond those currently within the permitting process. Therefore, the Plan focuses on water conservation and water reclamation. The region will rely increasingly on indirect potable reuse to extend existing water supplies beyond 2030. Additional water treatment capacity of 572 MGD is needed by 2030. A phased approach for providing the needed capacity at 35 treatment plants is shown in Appendix B. Recommended Actions and Milestones To implement the Water Supply and Water Conservation Plan (WS Plan) for water supply and treatment, the following actions are needed for securing water supply sources, sharing the water resources within the District, building additional treatment capacity, and organizing facilities for future indirect potable reuse. Water Supply Action No. 1: Support reallocation of Lake Lanier and Lake Allatoona for water supply. The reallocation of water storage from Lakes Lanier and Allatoona is crucial to guarantee water supply for the District for the next 30 years and beyond. The District should serve as an advocate with State negotiators, legislators, and the congressional delegation. The United States Army Corps of Engineers will be responsible for implementing the reallocation of the lakes, upon the request of the State. Water Supply Action No. 2: Support permitting and construction of at least five new water supply reservoirs. The WS Plan includes five new water supply reservoirs that are planned and in various stages of the permitting process. The new reservoirs, which will serve Cherokee, Cobb, Hall, Walton, WATER SUPPLY AND WATER CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT PLAN 9-1 DATE: SEPTEMBER 2003 P:\2317-002\Task 13\Final Report Sep. 2003\Final Word\Section 9 WS- Water Supply Facilities.doc Section 9: Planned Water Supply Facilities Henry, and Fayette Counties, are essential for meeting demands in these areas. The District should be a strong advocate for the permitting and timely construction of these projects, as these reservoirs are of critical importance to the jurisdictions that will benefit directly from the new sources. The reservoirs will also benefit the District overall by reducing reliance on Lakes Lanier and Allatoona, and the Chattahoochee and Etowah Rivers. Other new reservoirs, if they prove to be feasible and can be permitted, should be viewed as consistent with the WS Plan. Potential reservoir projects, beyond the five included, can be investigated and, if possible, constructed. However, in order to base the Plan on a conservative scenario, only new reservoirs deemed most likely to be constructed were included. The proposed South Fulton Reservoir or Hall County's Glades Reservoir would be examples of additional reservoirs that should be added to the District if they can be permitted and constructed. Water Supply Action No. 3: Construct two new system connections and maintain one existing system connection to allow water resource sharing To implement the Plan, water supply for some areas will need to come from different service providers than is currently the case. This is critical to meeting projected demands without overtaxing the available water resources within the District. The service connections that will be needed to accomplish these service area changes are described in Table 9-1. TABLE 9-1 System Connections for Multi-County Projects Service Provider/ Extension CCMWA wholesale service to Fulton County CCMWA Wholesale service to Paulding County City of Atlanta wholesale service to Coweta County 2030 Capacity (MGDAADD) 33 27 9 2030 Capacity (MGD- PDD) 53 43 15 Description of District Need Supplies projected Fulton County demand. Allows City of Atlanta to maintain emergency service capability for Fayette and Clayton, and to extend routine service to part of Coweta. Continues current service pattern through 2030. Fills Paulding's demands with existing supplies in a cost-effective manner. Helps to meet projected demands in Coweta County, where supplies are limited. More details on implementing these services are given in Section 10, Interconnection of Water Systems. The type of service arrangement, such as wholesale, retail, or joint authority, needs to be determined by the local governments, using the programs described in Section 14. Water Supply Action No. 4: Construct a new water treatment plant in Walton County. A new plant should be constructed by Walton County to treat water from the planned Hard Labor Creek Reservoir. The capital improvements associated with this action are presented in Appendix B. WATER SUPPLY AND WATER CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT PLAN 9-2 DATE: SEPTEMBER 2003 P:\2317-002\Task 13\Final Report Sep. 2003\Final Word\Section 9 WS- Water Supply Facilities.doc Section 9: Planned Water Supply Facilities Water Supply Action No. 5: Expand 25 existing (or soon to be constructed) water treatment plants. Many existing water treatment facilities will require capacity expansions and upgrades before 2030. The programmed capital improvements for expansions are presented in Appendix B. The 25 WTPs identified for expansion are listed in Table 9-2. Because treatment process upgrades will be triggered by regulatory requirements still being developed, the date and scope of the upgrades are not known today. Hence, projects for upgrading the plants are not listed in Appendix B. The non-capital tasks associated with this action include financing, interjurisdictional agreements, and State permitting. TABLE 9-2 Water Treatment Plants Planned to be Expanded before 2030 Location by County Bartow Cherokee Clayton Cobb Coweta DeKalb Douglas Fayette Forsyth Fulton Gwinnett Hall Henry Rockdale Walton Water Treatment Plant Cartersville WTP Cherokee Etowah River WTP Canton WTP Clayton J.W. Smith WTP Clayton W.J. Hooper WTP Clayton Freeman Road WTP CCMWA Wyckoff WTP Coweta BT Brown Newnan WTP DeKalb Scott Candler WTP DDCWSA Bear Creek WTP Fayette Crosstown WTP Fayette South WTP Fayetteville WTP Forsyth WTP Cumming WTP Atlanta-Fulton County WTP Gwinnett Shoal Creek WTP Buford WTP Gainesville Riverside WTP Gainesville Lakeside WTP Hall Cedar Creek WTP Henry Tussahaw WTP Rockdale Big Haynes Creek WTP Walton Lake Varner WTP Water Supply Action No. 6: Retire four existing water treatment plants. The planned decommissioning of four existing water plants is included in the phasing tables in Appendix B. The WTPs identified for retirement are listed in Table 9-3. The phase-outs will gradually occur as the older facilities exhaust their useful life, and new facilities come on line. The non-capital tasks associated with this action could include redevelopment of the properties for other uses. This action will also require inter-jurisdictional agreements and some shifting of service areas, assumed to occur as part of other actions. WATER SUPPLY AND WATER CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT PLAN 9-3 DATE: SEPTEMBER 2003 P:\2317-002\Task 13\Final Report Sep. 2003\Final Word\Section 9 WS- Water Supply Facilities.doc Section 9: Planned Water Supply Facilities TABLE 9-3 Water Treatment Plants Planned to be Retired before 2030 Location by County Coweta Fulton Walton Water Treatment Plant Senoia WTP Roswell WTP Palmetto WTP Social Circle WTP Water Supply Action No. 7: Return reclaimed water to Lake Lanier by Forsyth, Gwinnett, and Hall Counties for future indirect potable reuse. The cities and counties that withdraw water from Lake Lanier for drinking water supply need to return reclaimed water to the Lake. Long-term sustainability of the resource can be achieved through returning reclaimed water to the Lake. The District should negotiate a change in the Corps' storage pricing structure to provide a credit to permitted withdrawers for returning the reclaimed water to the Lake. The capital improvements associated with this action include advanced wastewater treatment facilities in Forsyth, Gwinnett, and Hall Counties, and conveyance systems to return the water to the lake. The Long-term Wastewater Management Plan includes the capital improvements needed to support this action. Non-capital tasks include permitting, public education, financing, and septic system policies (to assure the needed quantity of return flow). Capital Improvement Phasing Plans Appendix B presents the phasing plans for the water supply and treatment capital improvements in the Recommended Solution, including reservoirs, new treatment facilities, treatment facility expansions, and distribution system connections associated with interjurisdictional transfers. The phasing plans indicate the timeframe by which the facilities should be operational. A sequence of steps leads up to the operational milestone, including planning, site procurement (at times), environmental studies, design engineering, funding, and construction. These steps must be started from two to ten years in advance of the targeted operational milestone date. The phasing plans list expansion projects. Projects to upgrade the treatment facilities will be needed during the next 30 years, but they have not been included because the time when they are needed depends on regulatory requirements that are still under development. WATER SUPPLY AND WATER CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT PLAN 9-4 DATE: SEPTEMBER 2003 P:\2317-002\Task 13\Final Report Sep. 2003\Final Word\Section 9 WS- Water Supply Facilities.doc Section 10 Water System Interconnections Advancement of inter-jurisdictional water system connections, as required by EPD's Planning Standards, will significantly improve water system reliability and efficiency within the District. The needs for additional interconnections, whether for reliability and/or wholesale, are identified in this section. Planning for additional interconnections should be incorporated in local jurisdictions' water distribution system improvement plans. Local jurisdictions should use the recommended District-wide interconnection reliability target (IRT) to develop or update their emergency water sharing plans. Implementation actions required to advance water system connections are described in this section. Establishing Interconnection Reliability Targets Currently, no model for establishing interconnection goals or targets exists. An Interconnection Reliability Target (IRT) for each county was established to allow for the evaluation of existing and potential interconnection capabilities within the District in relation to projected 2030 water demands. Based on the District Water Use Profile developed for this WS Plan, approximately 35 percent of the annual average daily demand (AADD) is required for meeting the "essential water needs", including eating, drinking, toilet flushing, fire fighting, hospital use, and a portion of the system unaccounted for water (UFW). This essential needs figure was used to establish the IRT depending on the county's water supply source. For those counties served by "major" water sources consisting of Lake Lanier, Lake Allatoona, the Chattahoochee River, and the Etowah River, the IRT was calculated based on the following formula that is limited by WTP capacity: IRT = 35% x [AADD (Total WTP capacity Largest WTP capacity)] For counties served by water supply sources other than the "major" water sources, water supply was considered the limiting factor and the following formula for IRT applied: IRT = 35% x [AADD] The capacity currently available through existing county-to-county water system interconnections was determined. This capacity was then compared to the county's calculated IRT to determine future needs. WATER SUPPLY AND WATER CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT PLAN DATE: SEPTEMBER 2003 P:\2317-002\Task 13\Final Report Sep. 2003\Final Word\Section 10 WS- Interconnections.doc 10-1 Section 10: Water System Interconnections Summary of Recommendations Additional inter-jurisdictional connections are needed in 2030 to increase reliability and allow for routine water sale based on the WS Plan. Table 10-1 summarizes the estimated interconnection needs and recommended pipe sizes within the District, from both a reliability and routine sale basis. Figure 10-1 presents the recommended interconnection capacity for the demand centers that are projected to have a deficiency or a routine sale need. The recommendations presented in this section are best used as a basis for each county or water system to perform further evaluation. The evaluation performed within this WS Plan was based on general information and was not based on system-specific hydraulic studies that are needed to define the cost and the best way to achieve interconnections. Each water system will need to define its own IRT and evaluate other factors affecting water system reliability, including raw and finished water storage, infrastructure conditions, equipment redundancy, and existing interconnection capability. Detailed hydraulic studies should be conducted for each county and each water system to determine the overall distribution system improvements that are required to meet projected 2030 demands. The pipe sizes, approximate locations and lengths for potential interconnections should be refined by the hydraulic evaluations. The actual location, pipe size, length and alignment of the future interconnections, pumping or pressure reducing arrangements at the desired location should be determined as part of detailed design. Each water system should evaluate the feasibility and cost-effectiveness of providing multidirectional flows at existing and future interconnections with a pipe diameter greater than or equal to 12 inches. If providing multi-directional flows is determined to be infeasible, additional interconnections may be required to meet the recommended IRT. Each water system should improve and continuously update its inventory of distribution system components, including location and size of pipes, valves, and storage facilities. An updated inventory, including good system maps, will be tremendously beneficial in locating future interconnection locations and addressing other system maintenance problems such as pipe breaks and leaks. The distribution system maps can be incorporated into a Geographical Information System format currently used by many water systems in the District. In addition, each water system should develop or update their emergency and drought contingency plans to detail the steps that will be required to operate the interconnections during emergency conditions. Water sharing agreements should be established between the interconnected systems. WATER SUPPLY AND WATER CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT PLAN DATE: SEPTEMBER 2003 P:\2317-002\Task 13\Final Report Sep. 2003\Final Word\Section 10 WS- Interconnections.doc 10-2 Section 10: Water System Interconnections TABLE 10-1 Summary of Long-Term (2030) Interconnection Needs Interconnections for Reliability(2) Interconnections for Routine Sale(2,3) Demand Center (1) 1 Counties Served Bartow Capacity Deficiency (MGD) 0 7 Potential Pipe Size to Meet Worst Case IRT 1-20" or 2-16" Capacity Deficiency (MGD) NONE Potential Pipe Size to Support Water Sale NONE Cobb, Paulding, portions of Fulton and 5 Douglas 5 1-20" or 2-12" 50 Cobb to Fulton 19 Cobb to Paulding Cobb to Fulton: 1-54" or 1-48" plus 1-30" Cobb to Paulding: 1-36" Fulton/City of Atlanta and NE 9(4) 6 Coweta 1-24" or 2-16" NONE NONE 1- 36", or DeKalb 24 1-24" plus 1-30" or NONE NONE 7 2- 24" plus 1-16" 1-24" or Douglas 8 2-16" or NONE NONE 9 1-12" plus 1-20" 1-24" or 4 MGD City of Coweta 5 2-12" or Griffin to 1-16" 10 1-16" plus 1-12" Coweta 15 Walton 2 1-12" NONE NONE Notes: 1. Only Demand Centers with 2030 interconnection needs are shown. 2. Based on minimum nominal connecting pipe size and a velocity of 5 fps. 3. Capacity based on peak day routine sale, accounting for existing interconnections. 4. For North Fulton only. WATER SUPPLY AND WATER CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT PLAN DATE: SEPTEMBER 2003 P:\2317-002\Task 13\Final Report Sep. 2003\Final Word\Section 10 WS- Interconnections.doc 10-3 Legend = Demand Center Boundary 1 = Demand Center = County Boundaries = Lakes = Streams 1 = Additional Interconnection Capacity Required for Routine Sale River Basins = Chattahoochee River Basin = Etowah River Basin = Coosa River Basin = Tallapoosa River Basin = Flint River Basin = Ocmulgee River Basin = Oconee River Basin 1 = Additional Interconnection Capacity Required for Reliability (worst case) = Demand Centers with 2030 Interconnection Reliability Deficiencies COOSA RIVER BASIN ETOWAH RIVER BASIN CHATTAHOOCHEE RIVER BASIN 7 1 LAKE ALLATOONA 19 5 27/43 MGD AADD/PDD (Cobb to Paulding) 5 1/1 MGD AADD/PDD (Cobb to Douglas) 2 3 33/53 MGD AADD/PDD (Cobb to 50 Fulton) 24 LAKE SIDNEY LANIER 8 TALLAPOOSA RIVER BASIN 9 8 9 6 7 14 4 OCONEE RIVER BASIN 2 15 9/15 MGD AADD/PDD (Fulton to Coweta) 12 11 13 10 6 4 3/4 MGD AADD/PDD (City of Griffin to Coweta) FLINT RIVER BASIN OCMULGEE RIVER BASIN Metro trict orgia Wat politan North Ge er Planning Dis 2317_001_Maps_ImpPlan_10-1.fh9 Metropolitan North Georgia Water Planning District Water Supply Plan 2030 Interconnection Needs Date: September 2003 Scale: As Shown Job No.: 2317.001 Figure 10-1 Section 10: Water System Interconnections Implementation Actions Based on the recommendations, the critical implementation actions for advancing water system interconnections between jurisdictions are summarized below: Interconnections Action No. 1 - Set interconnection reliability targets. All water systems in the District should be interconnected for emergency purposes. A Districtwide IRT is based on a 35 percent essential water use figure, as depicted in Figure 10-2. Depending on the water supply source, the IRT for each water system should be defined as in Table 10-2: TABLE 10-2 Recommended Formula for Calculating Water System Interconnection Reliability Target Water Supply Source Lake Lanier Lake Allatoona Chattahoochee River Etowah River Other smaller water supply sources Interconnection Reliability Target Formula 35% x [AADD (Total WTP capacity Largest WTP capacity)] 35% x [AADD] Each water system should adopt a system-specific IRT based on the above recommendations. Variances from the District-wide IRT can be considered when an individual system's water use profile is significantly different from that of the District's. FIGURE 10-2 Essential Water Use Interconnection Action No. 2 Establish sample water sharing agreements. The District should develop sample water sharing agreements for use by entities within the District. At a minimum, the water sharing agreements should specify quantity, pressure requirements, and water rate (emergency and/or routine). Special conditions, such as the water systems' responsibilities to construct infrastructure improvements to support the water sale, also should be included. WATER SUPPLY AND WATER CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT PLAN DATE: SEPTEMBER 2003 P:\2317-002\Task 13\Final Report Sep. 2003\Final Word\Section 10 WS- Interconnections.doc 10-5 Section 10: Water System Interconnections Interconnection Action No. 3 Develop or update local emergency water plans. Each water system should develop or update their emergency plan to define detailed steps required to modify system operations in order to accept or share water with adjacent utilities. For the receiving utility, these steps may include defining: 1) Sub-areas within water systems that can be served by other utilities; 2) Valving, piping, and pumping changes for flow reversal in the sub-area during the water sharing period; and 3) Public notice/media announcement requirements for conservation and potential water quality changes. For the supplying utility, these steps may include: 1) Pumping and piping changes to supply the utility in need; and 2) Public notice/media announcement requirements for conservation. In addition, existing drought contingency plans should be revised to coordinate conservation measures with emergency water plans. WATER SUPPLY AND WATER CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT PLAN DATE: SEPTEMBER 2003 P:\2317-002\Task 13\Final Report Sep. 2003\Final Word\Section 10 WS- Interconnections.doc 10-6 Section 11 Local Planning Recommendations While the District has prepared the Water Supply and Water Conservation Plan (WS Plan), it will be implemented by the local jurisdictions that own and operate the water systems. Local jurisdictions need to integrate the WS Plan into their own master plans. While most of the local jurisdictions have ongoing water management planning efforts, the efforts and details vary widely within the District. Following the framework and goals established by the District, planning at the local level is necessary to refine the WS Plan and to address specific local needs. Where flexibilities are included in the WS Plan, it is the local jurisdictions' responsibility to evaluate the options and to determine their benefits and costs. Develop Local Water Management Plans Because the WS Plan is regional in breadth, it covers a wide range of topics. The specifics will need to be developed and/or refined at the local level by the jurisdictions impacted by the WS Plan. Preparation of local plans is both an opportunity to demonstrate conformance with the WS Plan and to provide improvements and innovations to the WS Plan, based on a more indepth analysis of local circumstances and factors. Local jurisdictions should develop water management plans that, at a minimum, conform to the goals of the core principles of the WS Plan to insure that water services are developed cost effectively, with a long-term regional perspective that provides good customer service. The following describes the actions required to implement the recommendations associated with developing local water management plans. Local Planning Action No. 1 - Develop local water management plans. Local water management plans will be needed to support proposed infrastructure improvements to the water management system. In some cases, the current local plan will align with the WS Plan, and no revisions will be needed. In other cases, the current plan will need to be revised to incorporate the District's core principles. The purpose of local water management plans is to refine the WS Plan by addressing local and site-specific issues. The relationships and methods used to develop the Service Delivery Strategies, required by House Bill 489, may be useful in developing local water plans. It is expected that the local governments will take the initiative in developing these plans. WATER SUPPLY AND WATER CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT PLAN DATE: SEPTEMBER 2003 P:\2317-002\Task 13\Final Report Sep. 2003\Final Word\Section 11 WS- Local Planning.doc 11-1 Section 11: Local Planning Recommendations At times, new local water management plans will need to be developed to address proposed inter-jurisdictional projects. These jurisdictions include the county, cities within the county, neighboring counties, and water and wastewater authorities, if different. Benefits to neighboring jurisdictions will only occur if local plans are well coordinated. The District can provide a facilitation role for inter-jurisdictional cooperation, if needed. The management plans should address water supply, water treatment, water transmission and distribution, water conservation, and reuse. The plans should include a water master plan with a minimum planning horizon of 30 years. The plans should project future growth and indicate the schedule for infrastructure improvements. Local governments, utilities, and authorities can use these plans to describe interim measures necessary to transition from now through 2030. Where changes to service areas are recommended, local plans that are coordinated with neighboring jurisdictions can investigate options and compare alternatives, if needed, to determine cost-effective, long-term solutions. Flexibility in implementation is achievable by presenting effective local plans that meet District goals. In general, the local plans should be updated every five years as the WS Plan is updated. The water, wastewater, and watershed/stormwater management planning efforts also should be integrated at the local level, according to the recommendations in the District plans. Water Supply, Conservation, and Reuse Management In addition to the existing and potential water supply sources included in the WS Plan, flexibility exists for local governments to evaluate potential water supply sources outside the District. However, water systems located in the Chattahoochee and Etowah River Basins must consider downstream impacts and must follow the terms and limits as proposed in the Tri-State Compacts. The District and EPD must evaluate the impacts on water allocation for variances from the WS Plan. Implementation of water conservation and reuse programs should be refined on a local level based on the recommended District programs. Due to the differences in current conservation levels, the local water conservation plan can specify required future conservation programs and define an implementation schedule according to local needs and resources. Coordination between water and wastewater planning is essential in the implementation of water reuse programs. The local wastewater master plan should include detailed studies in wastewater treatment technologies, quantities, quality, and permitting requirements for the recommended indirect potable water reuse program. Water Treatment Facilities The local plan will go one step further than the District WS Plan in refining the water treatment plant expansion details. Based on the framework developed in the District WS Plan, local water systems should develop water treatment expansion master plans that define the number, location, and capacities of water treatment facilities, and their implementation schedule. A life cycle cost analysis should be used to compare different expansion scenarios. Water treatment technologies, residuals handling, and management issues also should be included as part of the master planning. WATER SUPPLY AND WATER CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT PLAN DATE: SEPTEMBER 2003 P:\2317-002\Task 13\Final Report Sep. 2003\Final Word\Section 11 WS- Local Planning.doc 11-2 Section 11: Local Planning Recommendations Distribution System and Interconnections Facilities Each county and water system should conduct detailed hydraulic modeling and studies to determine the overall distribution system improvements required to meet the projected 2030 demands. The local plan should define its interconnection reliability target according to the recommended District formula, as discussed in Section 10, and use it as one of the planning criteria. The local plan also should evaluate other distribution system factors affecting reliability, including finished water storage, distribution system pipe conditions, and existing interconnection capability. Once the required improvements are defined, a schedule for transitioning to year 2030 can be developed. Drought and Emergency Plans As part of the local water supply management plan, each water system should determine its reliable supplies during a critical drought. The critical drought should have a minimum occurrence frequency of fifty years, or as severe as the five-year drought (1998-2003) Georgia has just experienced. Each water system also needs to prepare or update its emergency plan to incorporate detailed steps required to modify system operations for accepting or sharing water with connecting water systems. This was discussed in details in "Interconnections Action No. 3" in Section 10. Water use restrictions and required conservation measures in the local drought contingency plan should be revised to reflect the potential supplies available from new interconnections, if any. Local drought contingency plans should be updated to incorporate the permanent odd-even day outdoor water restrictions recently approved by the Board of the Georgia Department of Natural Resources (March 2003). Table 11-1 summarizes the essential elements that a local water plan should include in the future. In addition to traditional components, regional elements should be incorporated based on the recommendations in the WS Plan. Table 11-1 Local Water Planning Elements Traditional Demand Supply Service Area Treatment Transmission and Distribution Capital Improvement Plans Regional System Interconnections Water Conservation Water Reuse Drought Planning Emergency Planning Coordination with Wastewater and Watershed Plans Public Education and Awareness Activities Local Planning Action No. 2 - Review local plans for consistency with District Plan. Local jurisdictions should develop local water supply plans that, at a minimum, conform to the core principles of the WS Plan. EPD issue permits based on the local plans' consistency with the WS Plan, pursuant to Chapter 12-5-584, Section 1, Senate Bill 130: "Local governments within the District shall implement the provisions of the district plans that apply to them...Upon the district's approval of the plan, the director may modify all existing permits... to make them consistent with the plan." (emphasis added) WATER SUPPLY AND WATER CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT PLAN DATE: SEPTEMBER 2003 P:\2317-002\Task 13\Final Report Sep. 2003\Final Word\Section 11 WS- Local Planning.doc 11-3 Section 12 Plan Flexibility Section 11 presented an action plan for developing local plans to implement the Water Supply and Water Conservation Plan (WS Plan). The purpose of local plans is to address local needs and site-specific issues, to refine and improve the WS Plan, and to demonstrate consistency with the WS Plan. Local plan development will give local jurisdictions an opportunity to negotiate modifications to the WS Plan. In addition to local plan development, the updating of the WS Plan every five years will provide local jurisdictions with an opportunity to modify the WS Plan, based upon updated projections and the most recent information on matters impacting the WS Plan. This section presents guidance regarding the extent to which local jurisdictions can change the WS Plan, while remaining consistent with its essential elements. Essential Elements of the WS Plan The water resource constraints faced by the District over the next 30 years do not allow unlimited flexibility in meeting local water needs. It is apparent from the assessment of projected 2030 demands and available and anticipated supplies within the District that some water sources, particularly the Chattahoochee River/Lake Lanier system, will probably be overtaxed if local jurisdictions are granted unlimited flexibility in developing local plans. Though unlimited local flexibility is not a viable option for the District, some aspects of the WS Plan can be changed in ways that remain consistent with the fundamental goal of meeting 2030 demands with available District water resources. The remainder of this section provides a discussion of the WS Plan's essential elements, and the flexibility that can be accommodated regarding each element. These elements are critical to reliably meeting 2030 water demands. The essential elements discussed in this section under separate headings are: Reallocation of Lake Lanier and Lake Allatoona for water supply Intensification of water conservation efforts Construction of at least five new reservoirs Sharing of water resources within the District to meet local needs Reclamation of water by indirect potable reuse through Lake Lanier Interconnection of District systems to provide reliability for emergencies WATER SUPPLY AND WATER CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT PLAN DATE: SEPTEMBER 2003 P:\2317-002\TASK 13\FINAL REPORT SEP. 2003\FINAL WORD\SECTION 12 WS- PLAN FLEXIBILITY.DOC 12-1 Section 12: Plan Flexibility These essential elements correspond to the critical strategies listed in Section 2 with the addition of Interconnection of District systems. It is anticipated that refinements and adjustments to the WS Plan will be made over the 30-year planning period, based on new information (i.e. new projections or more detailed local information) and local preferences. The discussion presented here of the WS Plan's essential elements will give guidance regarding the limitations that should be placed on local refinements of the WS Plan. Reallocation of Lake Lanier and Lake Allatoona for Water Supply Local jurisdictions within the District must advocate the reallocations for the District. Dependence on the Chattahoochee/Lake Lanier and Etowah/Lake Allatoona systems as either routine or emergency water sources extends to every county of the District. Reallocation of these sources for water supply is vital to accommodating anticipated growth in District water demands. Of the critical strategies identified in Section 7, the reallocation of these two lakes provides the single largest addition to current water supplies. Intensification of Water Conservation Efforts The water conservation savings goal for the District is 136 MGD. Comparing this conservation goal to the WS Plan's margin of 2030 supply over demand (186 MGD) shows the importance of conservation to the WS Plan. Without conservation there is minimal buffer between supply and demand in 2030. The objective of the WS Plan is to achieve the water savings goal in as cost-effective a manner as possible. The conservation program described in Section 8 resulted from a process that started with the screening of 100 conservation measures, followed by an analysis of the cost effectiveness of 25 potential measures, and culminating in a recommendation of 11 measures. The conservation program represents a well-considered recommendation to the District as to how to achieve the District's water savings goal at a minimum cost. Local jurisdictions may contend that conservation measures other than those recommended in the program would be more cost-effective or otherwise more appropriate for their particular situation. The District or EPD should provide a forum for negotiating changes from the recommended conservation program. Where the need arises, on a case-by-case basis, changes from the recommended conservation program should be allowed when a local jurisdiction can demonstrate that its proposed changes can be expected to be at least as effective as the recommended program. In other cases, possible exemptions from certain conservation measures should be considered, if a local jurisdiction demonstrates that the measure will probably not be cost effective for its situation. Construction of at Least Five New Reservoirs Five new reservoirs, with a total estimated yield for District use of 114 MGD, are included in the WS Plan. Other new reservoirs have been proposed by some District jurisdictions. If such reservoirs prove to be feasible and can be permitted, and they do not diminish the supply of other District water sources included in the WS Plan, they should be viewed as consistent with WATER SUPPLY AND WATER CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT PLAN DATE: SEPTEMBER 2003 P:\2317-002\TASK 13\FINAL REPORT SEP. 2003\FINAL WORD\SECTION 12 WS- PLAN FLEXIBILITY.DOC 12-2 Section 12: Plan Flexibility the WS Plan. Potential reservoir projects, beyond the five included, can be investigated and, if possible, constructed. However, in order to base the WS Plan on a conservative scenario, only new reservoirs deemed most likely to be constructed were included in the WS Plan's anticipated 2030 water supplies. A specific example of a reservoir that should be viewed as consistent with the plan is the South Fulton Reservoir currently being planned to serve Union City, Fairburn, Palmetto, and other parts of southern Fulton County. This project, if it proves to be feasible and can be permitted, is a viable way to serve parts of south Fulton County from an alternative Chattahoochee Basin source. For this reservoir or others that can prove to be feasible, new treatment facilities near the new source should also be viewed as consistent with the WS Plan. Hall County's Glades Reservoir would also be consistent with the WS Plan, if it can be permitted and constructed. In general, new reservoirs that increase the available yield of water resources for the District should be viewed as consistent with the WS Plan. Sharing of Water Resources within the District to Meet Local Needs The Chattahoochee River/Lake Lanier system cannot meet the projected 2030 water demands of all the jurisdictions currently expecting to use this water source. The WS Plan proposes to partially remedy this situation by using Lake Allatoona and other Etowah Basin sources to serve some areas currently earmarked for service from Lake Lanier or the Chattahoochee River. The Etowah Basin retains the largest margin of water supply over projected 2030 demand of any of the District basins, in spite of the expansion of areas served from this source. The increased use of Etowah sources is facilitated within the WS Plan by proposed expansion of the service area of the Cobb County-Marietta Water Authority. Within the WS Plan, water from the Cobb County-Marietta Water Authority would serve part of Fulton County through a wholesale arrangement. It is recognized that this service area change presents challenges with regard to inter-jurisdictional coordination and maximization of the use of existing infrastructure. The WS Plan as it is proposed has been developed to try to minimize these challenges, but the jurisdictions involved will be given the opportunity, through their local planning efforts, to modify the WS Plan to minimize these challenges further based on their own assessments. The essential elements of the WS Plan that need to be realized, regardless of WS Plan modifications or changes, are listed below, along with brief discussions of acceptable changes. Expansion of Wyckoff WTP Expansion of treatment capacity for the Cobb County-Marietta Water Authority needs to be concentrated at the Wyckoff WTP, which withdraws from Lake Allatoona. Expansion of the Quarles WTP, which withdraws from the Chattahoochee River, should be limited to the 87 MGD capacity that will result from the next planned expansion. 33 MGD AADD of Water from Cobb County- Marietta Water Authority to Fulton County Fulton County needs to receive approximately 33 MGD AAD of its 2030 water supply from the Cobb County-Marietta Water Authority. Specific areas of Fulton County to be served by the Cobb County-Marietta Water Authority can be determined by joint local planning. WATER SUPPLY AND WATER CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT PLAN DATE: SEPTEMBER 2003 P:\2317-002\TASK 13\FINAL REPORT SEP. 2003\FINAL WORD\SECTION 12 WS- PLAN FLEXIBILITY.DOC 12-3 Section 12: Plan Flexibility Reclamation of Water by Indirect Potable Reuse through Lake Lanier In the WS Plan, planned reclaimed water discharges into Lake Lanier will increase the yield of this water source by 67 MGD. This increased yield equals the amount of reclaimed water to be discharged to Lake Lanier (117 AADD-MGD), minus the amount anticipated in current yield estimates for the Lake (50 AADD-MGD). Planned reclaimed water contributions from jurisdictions around Lake Lanier are described in the Long-Term Wastewater Management Plan. Without this water reclamation effort, the WS Plan's projected 2030 withdrawals from the Lake Lanier/Chattahoochee River system will exceed the yield of this source by 30 MGD. Without water reclamation the Chattahoochee system will not be able to meet projected 2030 water demands within the context of the WS Plan. Water reclamation within the WS Plan also provides the buffer between supply and projected 2030 demand for the Chattahoochee system. This buffer is essential to making the WS Plan capable of reliably meeting demands. There will be no capability to meet contingencies that may arise over the planning period without the recommended water reclamation. Joint local planning among the jurisdictions in Forsyth, Hall, and Gwinnett Counties can modify the specifics of where reclaimed water comes from, but the amount should not be reduced. Any increases of the amount of reclaimed water discharged to Lake Lanier above the planned amount will need to be accompanied by efforts to ensure that total wasteload limits for Lake Lanier are not exceeded. Interconnection of District Systems to Provide Reliability for Emergencies Working together, District members need to determine interconnection reliability targets (IRTs) for each water system and implement the required distribution system improvements to realize these targets. The interconnection program that is described in Section 10 recommends that District members develop District guidelines, and that individual water systems determine their own IRTs, using the guidelines. This program will greatly improve the emergency reliability of District water supplies. Flexible Elements of the WS Plan Some elements of the WS Plan are recognized as needing local review and evaluation. Adjustments in these areas will be needed over the course of the planning period to adapt the WS Plan to new information and changing circumstances. Plant Capacities Plant capacities listed in Appendix B were determined to match the projected 2030 peak day water demand. It is recognized that plant capacity is added in convenient increments and not to match a specific projected flow. At times, it may be desirable to construct somewhat more capacity than is shown in Appendix B to add a convenient increment of capacity. For example, if a WTP with 5 MGD capacity needs to handle a projected demand of 8 MGD, the most cost efficient plan may be to double the current capacity to 10 MGD. This WS Plan did not determine convenient increments of plant capacity for expansion projects. The local plans need to address this question. WATER SUPPLY AND WATER CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT PLAN DATE: SEPTEMBER 2003 P:\2317-002\TASK 13\FINAL REPORT SEP. 2003\FINAL WORD\SECTION 12 WS- PLAN FLEXIBILITY.DOC 12-4 Section 12: Plan Flexibility Another topic to be addressed by the local plans is system-specific peaking factors. The projections of plant capacity were based on a District-average peaking factor of 1.6 (peak day/average annual day). This peaking factor was selected as representative of the District, after reviewing flow records for 2001 for all the major WTPs. It is recognized that each utility needs to determine appropriate values for this factor for its system. Systems will differ due to variations in system storage and unaccounted-for-water. The impacts of water conservation measures on future flows must also be considered in local plans. The effects of any changes in plant capacity will need to be evaluated in light of the essential elements of the WS Plan. It is anticipated that most utilities will need to expand their WTPs in phases, rather than installing all of the proposed 2030 capacity in the immediate future. This phasing will provide the utility and the District time to incorporate the changes in capacity into the planning process. The utilities must recognize that they will receive withdrawal permits based on their projected near-term needs, and that the plant capacity in the WS Plan is not an allocation of withdrawal that is reserved for the utility. Phasing The timeframe for phasing the capital improvements shown in Appendix B was developed to provide adequate treatment capacity for the projected water demands, and to make steady progress toward implementing the essential elements of the WS Plan. Within this context, the timeframe is flexible. For example, delaying the date that a plant is decommissioned is generally acceptable. Expanding a plant in more or fewer projects is also generally acceptable. The local plans are expected to delve into the timeframes for capital improvements in greater detail than the WS Plan. Site Specific Issues Local planning officials will have advantages in producing their plans that should be realized and appreciated in implementing the WS Plan. Local officials will have the opportunity to focus their attention on their portion of the District, resulting in most cases in a better understanding of: Local growth patterns Local water demand patterns Land availability and pricing Capabilities of existing facilities In many cases, these advantages will produce cost-effective solutions for meeting local water supply needs that may differ from the details of the WS Plan, but are consistent with the essential elements of the WS Plan. In such cases, local jurisdictions should be given discretion to implement their preferred plan as long as the essential elements of the WS Plan are met. WATER SUPPLY AND WATER CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT PLAN DATE: SEPTEMBER 2003 P:\2317-002\TASK 13\FINAL REPORT SEP. 2003\FINAL WORD\SECTION 12 WS- PLAN FLEXIBILITY.DOC 12-5 Section 13 Legislative and Regulatory Recommendations This section summarizes the legislative actions and regulatory recommendations crucial to the implementation of the Water Supply and Water Conservation Management Plan (WS Plan). One of the purposes of the WS Plan is to serve as a guide for the EPD when issuing water withdrawal permits. Because the WS Plan establishes the regional framework for water management, each local plan will not need to address the regional issues. This will accelerate approval by the EPD. Further, the local jurisdictions will have a plan to follow in securing withdrawal permits. Enact Necessary Legislation State legislative actions are required to implement the recommended water conservation programs. These legislations are necessary to achieve the targeted water saving goal through conservation practices. Three required legislative actions are listed below. Details of these recommended actions were described as Water Conservation Action Nos. 2 through 4 in Section 8-Water Conservation Program. Legislative Action No. 1 - Enact legislation to require plumbing retrofits on home resales. Legislative Action No. 2 - Enact legislation to require low-flush urinals for new industrial, commercial and institutional buildings. Legislative Action No. 3 Enact legislation to require rain sensor shut-off switches on new irrigation systems. Withdrawal Permits Senate Bill 130 grants the EPD broad powers for issuing water withdrawal permits in accordance with the WS Plan. These powers are the most potent force to facilitate implementation of the WS Plan. Regulatory permitting of water withdrawal is crucial to the implementation of the WS Plan. From a proactive perspective, one of the major accomplishments of the WS Plan is that it will serve as the guide for the EPD to issue permits. The WS Plan offers new insights into making natural resource allocations and issuing permits. It is regional and long-range, two perspectives not included in the plans previously developed by the local governments. Under the WS Plan, WATER SUPPLY AND WATER CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT PLAN DATE: SEPTEMBER 2003 P:\2317-002\TASK 13\FINAL REPORT SEP. 2003\FINAL WORD\SECTION 13 WS- REGULATORY.DOC 13-1 Section 13: Legislative and Regulatory Recommendations securing water withdrawal permits will become more predictable, because everyone will understand that permits are being issued according to the WS Plan. EPD will use the WS Plan to issue water withdrawal permits, thereby expediting the permitting processes. This will allow local jurisdictions to develop more viable plans, because they will be able to understand what guide the EPD is using to issue permits. Streamlined Permitting Obtaining permits from the EPD, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE), and other agencies can be a time-consuming, costly, and often confusing process. For example, development of a new water supply reservoir, including planning, permitting, design, and construction, typically ranges from five to ten years, depending on the size and complexity of the project. Currently, local governments must obtain permits from various agencies for water supply, treatment, and water transmission/distribution projects. While many permits, ranging from local to federal, may be required for a project, the greatest opportunity and best potential for streamlining lies within the ACOE and the EPD permitting processes for the District. The District should be an advocate by assisting these agencies in simplifying the permitting and reporting requirements, and reducing review time. Efforts should be made to make sure that compliance with the WS Plan eliminates the requirements for applicants to demonstrate the need for their projects, which can be a time consuming part of the permitting process. Permitting Action No. 1 Develop a Regional Section 404 permit for the District. Many District projects will involve activities within the "Nation's Waters," which includes wetlands, streams, lakes, and ponds. Through Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, the ACOE has jurisdiction over impacts to these areas and requires appropriate permitting that varies, based on proposed impacts. Typical permits include: Nationwide Permits, Regional Permits, and Individual Permits. The typical timeframe for acquiring these permits ranges from 45 days to several years. The District may negotiate a Regional Permit with the Savannah ACOE that will cover a wide variety of typical projects. Authorized for a specific geographic region and activity, Regional Permits usually allow for impacts that exceed the Nationwide Permit thresholds (0.5 acre of wetland and 100 linear feet of stream), but that do not warrant an Individual Permit. Examples of Regional Permits include Minor Discharges for Roads and Bridges, which applies to Georgia Department of Transportation (DOT) and local DOTs, and the raw water intake structures on Lake Lanier (Lake Lanier Resource Manager's Office oversees this permit). A Regional 404 permit may be used for any category of activities that are similar in nature, will cause minimal adverse environmental effects when performed, and will only have minimal cumulative effect on the environment. Obtaining a Regional Permit will allow the District to negotiate a uniform wetland mitigation strategy. This benefit will provide the District with a mitigation strategy and a predictable estimate of compensatory mitigation cost. Developing a Regional Permit will require a major effort on behalf of the District and substantial coordination with other resource agencies, but will save time overall when applied to multiple individual projects. WATER SUPPLY AND WATER CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT PLAN DATE: SEPTEMBER 2003 P:\2317-002\TASK 13\FINAL REPORT SEP. 2003\FINAL WORD\SECTION 13 WS- REGULATORY.DOC 13-2 Section 13: Legislative and Regulatory Recommendations Local jurisdictions and all involved agencies, including the ACOE, Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), EPD, State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO), and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), will need to meet to determine eligible projects in the WS Plan. Establishment of a Regional Permit will include the following subtasks: Establish jurisdictional impact thresholds for new permit Establish jurisdictional mitigation requirements Negotiate a categorical Section 401 Water Quality certification from EPD Establish a notification/ review process and other special conditions Set guidelines for dealing with SHPO, USFWS, EPA and other review agencies Advertise draft permit for public comments Permitting Action No. 2 Streamline EPD permitting for District projects. Currently, water withdrawal permits are handled by the Water Resources Program of the EPD's Water Resources Branch. The Drinking Water Permitting and Engineering Program is under the same branch and issues permits for public water systems, including permits for the expansion or modification of existing public water treatment plants. In addition, several programs within the Water Protection Branch regulate wastewater systems. While consolidation of these permits may not be practical, coordination and communication among the groups handling the permits should be increased in order to expedite projects included in the WS Plan. Consolidate permit cycle. The water withdrawal permit is typically issued for a tenyear period; the permit to operate treatment facilities is typically also issued for a tenyear period. It is recommended that the permit cycles for both withdrawal and treatment/operation/plant expansion be consolidated into the same cycle on the basis of river basin (same as the wastewater permits), in order to revise and refine these permits based on the updated needs in the particular basin. Develop standard permit conditions for District permits. EPD permits in the District may include standard permit conditions with compliance schedules, if necessary, incorporating the requirements of the WS Plan into the permit. Conditions could include modifications to rate structures, implementation of water conservation measures, development and updating of local plans, and intergovernmental agreements. Modify EPD guidelines to be consistent with the District plan. For EPD permits in the District, instead of the current requirement of obtaining certification letters from local planning offices and regional development centers, modify the permit application requirements to assure consistency with the WS Plan. EPD, in consultation with the District, will develop guidelines for local compliance with the plans. The guidelines will include a timeline of EPD and local government actions and priorities. Consolidate and standardize reporting. Reporting is required for several regulatory programs, such as the water conservation progress report. These reports can be simplified to meet multiple requirements. WATER SUPPLY AND WATER CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT PLAN DATE: SEPTEMBER 2003 P:\2317-002\TASK 13\FINAL REPORT SEP. 2003\FINAL WORD\SECTION 13 WS- REGULATORY.DOC 13-3 Section 13: Legislative and Regulatory Recommendations Withdrawals The metropolitan North Georgia area's growth has created a need for a regional plan to allocate its water resources. The WS Plan has been developed to respond to anticipated growth and will be revised and updated as growth projections are changed. No final and unchangeable allocation of resources is proposed in this WS Plan. The WS Plan provides a framework for foreseeing water resource demands within the District. It provides a basis for coordinating resource allocations among District jurisdictions, so that resources will be available where they are needed to prevent any jurisdiction from monopolizing the resources. PermittingAction No. 3 Set water withdrawals according to the WS Plan. The EPD will use the WS Plan to guide the issuance of water withdrawal permits. Upon request by EPD, the District will review local utilities' plans for conformance with the principles of the WS Plan. If the proposed withdrawal deviates from the WS Plan, the District will need to make a determination if the proposal requires amendment of the WS Plan. The central principle of the WS Plan is to meet water resource needs. If jurisdictions can demonstrate a need for resources beyond those projected in the WS Plan, EPD or the District should consider amendment of the WS Plan. Consideration of such an amendment will also need to account for growth District-wide, and the limited resources of the District. While the EPD will use the WS Plan to respond to withdrawal requests, the EPD will not grant the full 2030 projected water demand shown in the WS Plan in the next few years. Permits will be increased, as they are needed, according to the growth in the local community. This is the present policy followed by the EPD and no changes to the policy are anticipated. This policy preserves water resources for situations when communities grow at different rates than the projections developed for the WS Plan. This policy gives the EPD flexibility to accommodate future conditions. WATER SUPPLY AND WATER CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT PLAN DATE: SEPTEMBER 2003 P:\2317-002\TASK 13\FINAL REPORT SEP. 2003\FINAL WORD\SECTION 13 WS- REGULATORY.DOC 13-4 Section 14 Governance and Inter-jurisdictional Collaboration Senate Bill 130 requires that the Water Supply and Water Conservation Management Plan (WS Plan) include: "...measures to maximize efficiency through multi-jurisdictional approaches to avoid duplication of efforts and unnecessary costs." The extensive number of existing inter-jurisdictional agreements among local governments and utilities demonstrates the appreciation and benefits of cooperative service delivery. In fact, today many water facilities serve residents and businesses from more than one jurisdiction. District-wide relationships, understanding of common and unique problems, and trust are evolving through the forum of the Atlanta Regional Commission and other regional development centers, the requirements of joint service delivery strategies in House Bill 489, and this current District planning effort. The WS Plan will build and expand on this communication and cooperation to optimize limited water supplies and water treatment as well as financial and technical resources. Moving from Coordination to Collaboration To achieve the true spirit of Senate Bill 130, and the long-term benefits Legislators envisioned for metropolitan North Georgia's residents, local governments will need to move from simple communication and coordination to true collaboration. Trying to achieve significant new levels of service for the growing District FIGURE 14-1 Levels Leading to Collaboration will require calculated risks and the evolution of new business and governance models. Increasingly integrated District activities can yield a variety of benefits to individual communities and the District at large: Avoid conflicts and surprises Eliminate redundant activities, facilities, and costs Address common needs WATER SUPPLY AND WATER CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT PLAN DATE: SEPTEMBER 2003 P:\2317-002\TASK 13\FINAL REPORT SEP. 2003\FINAL WORD\SECTION 14 WS-GOVERNANCE.DOC 14-1 Section 14: Governance and Inter-jurisdictional Collaboration Enable solutions beyond the reach of any single jurisdiction Increase funding for infrastructure and services Enhance collective fiscal capacity Provide effective policy advocacy for unique District interests Ensure reliability of public services Streamline planning and permitting Leverage the strengths and voices of all Build understanding and trust Ultimately, collective progress will require leaders who have a vision of collaboration's benefits, and who have the desire and ability to work with new partners where the opportunity for mutual benefit is clear. These leaders will also be able to discern the circumstances where independent action is appropriate, while openly communicating and coordinating with District partners. Obstacles to Collaboration While the record of coordination in the District is commendable, it also points to several serious impediments to truly collaborative inter-jurisdictional planning, project sponsorship, and service delivery. Specific obstacles have been identified as critical for the District to address: Availability of funding for capital improvements in advance of established customer base especially troublesome for communities with little water infrastructure in place Integrity of revenue stream for current bond obligations communities or systems with substantial and publicly-financed infrastructure investments must address current commitments to bond holders Lack of equity (perceived or real) without some intervention, negotiations typically favor more established, wealthier, large communities and put others at economic or political disadvantage. At the same time, communities that have been "progressive" and that have made major investments are hesitant to "subsidize" other jurisdictions Concerns about level of service many jurisdictions feel that they are best able to provide the level of service desired by their citizens, and are hesitant to relinquish local control of operations or purchase service from wholesale service providers. Opportunities for Regional Collaboration The WS Plan identifies numerous opportunities for regional collaboration on a variety of issues. Examples include preparing model inter-jurisdictional agreements, combining forces to pursue innovative funding sources, and joint projects. Projects with multi-jurisdictional involvement are listed in Table 14-1. WATER SUPPLY AND WATER CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT PLAN DATE: SEPTEMBER 2003 P:\2317-002\TASK 13\FINAL REPORT SEP. 2003\FINAL WORD\SECTION 14 WS-GOVERNANCE.DOC 14-2 Section 14: Governance and Inter-jurisdictional Collaboration Table 14-1 Multi-jurisdictional Projects Project City/County Regionalization Water conservation CCMWA service to Fulton County CCMWA service to Paulding County Atlanta serves portion of Coweta County Project Purpose Major Jurisdictions Involved Consolidate water treatment at a few regional facilities, allowing many smaller plants to be retired. Reduce water demands through more efficient indoor and outdoor water sue and reduction of water losses through system leakage. Allows Etowah portion of Fulton County to be supplied by water from the Etowah basin. Continues current service pattern through 2030. Fills Paulding County's demands with existing supplies in a cost-effective manner. Concentrates expansion in Fulton County at the Atlanta-Fulton County WTP. This expansion allows the City of Atlanta WTPs to serve a portion of Coweta County and growth in South Fulton County. Counties and cities throughout the District All jurisdictions Cobb County-Marietta Water Authority, Fulton County, Roswell, Alpharetta Cobb County-Marietta Water Authority, Paulding County Fulton County, Atlanta, Coweta County Tools to Advance Collaboration Both traditional and new tools are elements of this WS Plan. The goal is to facilitate more robust inter-jurisdictional relations so that stakeholders can move from simple communication through effective coordination to productive collaboration. Governance and Collaboration Action No. 1: Continue to use existing tools. Basic known tools should continue to be used. These include: Ongoing dialogue through the District forum at both the technical and board levels Compliance with State requirements for county-municipal coordination of service delivery strategies (House Bill 489) Coordination of local plans with regional plans (Georgia Planning Law regulations) Increased use of a long-tenured, local citizen management or oversight water services board as decision makers. These tools alone will not propel the District's jurisdictions beyond their disparate, individual interests into successful voluntary collaboration. Several breakthrough strategies have been identified and are detailed in the following section. These strategies include: Prepare model inter-jurisdictional agreements Establish a fair share funding formula framework Assure an appropriate level of service WATER SUPPLY AND WATER CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT PLAN DATE: SEPTEMBER 2003 P:\2317-002\TASK 13\FINAL REPORT SEP. 2003\FINAL WORD\SECTION 14 WS-GOVERNANCE.DOC 14-3 Section 14: Governance and Inter-jurisdictional Collaboration Establish a formal dispute resolution system Increase the State role in compliance with WS Plan and project sponsorship Establish a formal amendment process Publicize and reward successful partnerships Governance and Collaboration Action No. 2: Develop and share model inter-jurisdictional agreements. The agreements between entities that govern joint projects and service delivery are important, complex, and time-consuming to prepare. The challenge of constructing an agreement, especially for a first-time partnership, can be a sufficient impediment to delay even initial negotiations. As with ordinances, there is efficiency to be gained by establishing a model agreement that can be used as a starting point for local government discussions. A model agreement developed by the District would be a tool that could be used on a voluntary basis. Where communities are comfortable using old agreements as the basis for new ones, or are willing to start from scratch, the model ordinance would not be imposed on them. The District should establish a model inter-jurisdictional agreement for use by member governments and utilities. The model should reflect the successful features of existing agreements in the District, and should address issues discussed in this WS Plan, such as a fair funding formula, level of service and dispute resolution. In view of the variety of initiatives the District will be expected to launch, the timing of model ordinance development should be discussed with District members to gauge their relative sense of urgency about this tool. Model preparation should be considered a priority to be completed in the first year if imminent joint projects or service arrangements identified in the WS Plan appear to be at risk of foundering without assistance from the District. Governance and Collaboration Action No. 3 Establish a fair share funding formula framework. Assuming that additional gap financing is available to allow projects to proceed (as discussed under in Section 15 - Funding), the framework for a fair share cost formula must be established for capital projects and joint services. This is absolutely critical to the District's progress. While each inter-jurisdictional negotiation will have a unique set of issues, fairness and cost sharing must be part of each. No single formula can apply to each negotiation, but the District can and must assure its members that key items will be addressed in all negotiations. By setting the basic framework for all negotiations, the District can eliminate some of the initial, and substantial, delays associated with negotiation start-up. Basic elements that all inter-jurisdictional deliberations should include are: The cost of new or improved infrastructure and its financing - including both plants and distribution systems, and consideration for investment in existing infrastructure Value of money both the absolute and time value of money invested in planning, permitting, operating, and maintaining infrastructure Timing issues - costs of remedial upgrades required for, or penalties assessed against, a facility or system before new jurisdictions become customers of that facility or system WATER SUPPLY AND WATER CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT PLAN DATE: SEPTEMBER 2003 P:\2317-002\TASK 13\FINAL REPORT SEP. 2003\FINAL WORD\SECTION 14 WS-GOVERNANCE.DOC 14-4 Section 14: Governance and Inter-jurisdictional Collaboration Opportunity costs - associated with yielding to others' priorities Commitments in bond covenants for repayment particularly important and complex when service areas are changed Current obligations - opportunities to refinance Ability to pay current and projected Opportunities for phased payment to correspond with revenue from new customers Benefit received in direct service (vs. intangible benefits that cannot be quantified) Fee structure(s) current and projected Special service requirements for a particular industry or long-standing customer Governance and decision making relative balance of power in ongoing decisions in areas such as policy, operations, planning, and fees Compliance - with state and federal rules and regulations. The District, in consultation with its members, bond and legal counsel, and state agencies (EPD and GEFA in particular), should develop a framework within two years of the adoption of final District Plans. The process of developing the framework may identify other elements that should be included, and/or other obstacles to joint sponsorship of projects and interjurisdictional cooperation that should be addressed. The results of this effort could include standard approaches, documents, and/or templates for guiding and assisting negotiating entities. Effectiveness of the framework should be monitored annually and reported to the District Board, with recommendations for refinement. Governance and Collaboration Action No. 4 Clearly establish level of service expectations, commitments, and appeals process. District members must have a way to ensure that under District Plans, their constituents will receive appropriate levels of service at fair prices, and means of redress for poor service. This must be two-pronged. First, when entering into inter-jurisdictional agreements, all parties must clearly articulate their needs and expectations, and agree to clear service commitments and performance measures. Second, the agreements must include provisions for tracking and reporting on performance by the service provider, penalties for poor performance, and an appeal mechanism for jurisdictions that contract for service and appeal for remedies or changes in terms of service. This is a particularly important issue to address in certain situations. For example, confidence about future level of service is likely to be critical when services area changes are recommended or anywhere customers are not served by the local jurisdiction in which they reside. Confidence will also be important when smaller jurisdictions are served by larger jurisdictions or in circumstances where third party contract operators provide the service. Also, water service providers must have quality assurances from suppliers. The District, with the assistance of District members, must establish two items. First, the District Board should adopt a statement of District service standards. The statement should articulate the general quality or level of service local entities and individual customers can expect as a result of District Plans. Levels of service issues could include payment, response times, interruption of services, and an appeals process. Second, the District, with the assistance of District members and the EPD, should develop more detailed guidelines for service WATER SUPPLY AND WATER CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT PLAN DATE: SEPTEMBER 2003 P:\2317-002\TASK 13\FINAL REPORT SEP. 2003\FINAL WORD\SECTION 14 WS-GOVERNANCE.DOC 14-5 Section 14: Governance and Inter-jurisdictional Collaboration providers, and model agreements for local governments to use as they contemplate or enter into service agreements. Governance and Collaboration Action No. 5 Establish a formal system of dispute resolution. While District efforts continue to be focused on reaching consensus, conflicts are inevitable. A formal system of conflict resolution must be established and agreed to by District members. It is needed to ensure timely progress in reaching agreements when voluntary deliberations falter. Too often, inter-jurisdictional negotiations drag on for years, while real needs go unmet and mutually beneficial projects are stalled. A variety of common problems can be overcome with a formal process for "getting to yes." Sometimes progress on agreements fails because relationships and negotiation history are lost when there are shifts in political leadership. Other times, deliberations reach a stalemate because parties to the negotiation are unable to overcome a particular obstacle or point of disagreement. In still other cases, one party may be hesitant to enter into negotiations because the party feels that it is weaker and at a distinct disadvantage with a larger, more established partner, and that there is no objective third party to intervene on its behalf. The District should build on the lessons learned from mediation established in state regulations for local government negotiations on planning and service delivery strategies. Non-binding mediation does not yield sufficient results without the prospect of binding arbitration, should the mediation fail. The District should, with the assistance of experts in alternative dispute resolution, establish a clear, tiered system for inter-jurisdictional consensus building. At a minimum, three tiers should be included: informal negotiations; non-binding mediation; and binding arbitration. Triggers for moving from one level to the next must be clearly identified. For example, any party to mediation can request binding arbitration, but arbitration might also be triggered if mediation does not result in an agreement in six months. The District should consider triggering the informal negotiation process (and by extension the possibility of mediation and eventually arbitration), if local governments have not voluntarily initiated discussions about projects for which the District Plans clearly hold them responsible. Mediation and arbitration panels could consist of District members. Governance and Collaboration Action No. 6 Actively explore the most appropriate role for the state to play in the District's long-term water resource issues. While the focus of this WS Plan is local implementation with District support, the State of Georgia has clear interests in the success of District Plans. In the case of inter-jurisdictional relations, ultimately the State is better positioned to ensure compliance with District goals. Senate Bill 130 promotes the use of permitting and funding tools to ensure expeditious implementation of District Plans. The DNR already has the ability to sponsor and operate water facilities, the EPD has the authority to issue permits, and GEFA has the ability to fund water and sewer projects. The State's regional reservoir program and water conservation office are sponsoring initiatives pertinent to the District. In addition, current legislative proposals for a State plan for water resources are on the horizon. The District Plans must be coordinated with both. WATER SUPPLY AND WATER CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT PLAN DATE: SEPTEMBER 2003 P:\2317-002\TASK 13\FINAL REPORT SEP. 2003\FINAL WORD\SECTION 14 WS-GOVERNANCE.DOC 14-6 Section 14: Governance and Inter-jurisdictional Collaboration The District and its members should work with state agencies to explore appropriate long-term roles for the State. First, the State may champion cooperative planning and cost effective implementation to share water resources and pledge a partnership approach for agencies such as the DNR, EPD, and GEFA. Another option that should be considered is the State moving into a more dominant role, such as sub-state (or District) planning, aggressive sponsorship of capital programs, or expanding the District Board to represent more stakeholders. Findings and recommendations should be included in the first five-year update of District Plans at the latest. Historically, EPD has faced funding limitations. It is recommended that EPD identify staffing needs to implement their responsibilities for enforcement of the District Plans, and that the District support efforts to secure additional funding for EPD from the legislature. Governance and Collaboration Action No. 7 Amend District WS Plan as necessary to allow local innovation and flexibility. District members must have some flexibility to amend District Plans. The standard for submitting an amendment request must be high, and for granting a request even higher, if District goals are to be met. This amendment process directly addresses one of the District's basic goals that of allowing flexibility and would allow District members to request permission to deviate from District Plans for unusual, but valid reasons. Also, the amendment process should be viewed as a tool for innovation available to local governments who individually or collectively want to aggressively pursue alternative approaches to achieving District goals. The amendment process must be carefully coordinated with the EPD, since deviations from District Plans must occur within the context of the State's Planning Standards, and would have direct bearing on EPD permits. The District, with assistance of the EPD and District members, should establish a formal amendment process. The Board alone should grant amendments, rather than allowing District staff to issue or approve amendments administratively. However, there must be a mechanism to respond to real issues that arise or are recognized after the District Plans are adopted, but before they will be fully updated. Governance and Collaboration Action No. 8 Publicize and reward successful partnerships. The District and State should recognize particularly successful inter-jurisdictional partnerships and their benefits. The goal of this tool is to reinforce desired behavior and encourage the same by others. The recognition system can be as simple as publicity for negotiations and projects that go well, to actual awards. The District and the State should also consider offering bonuses for jurisdictions that demonstrate innovation and leadership in tackling inter-jurisdictional projects or service, such as in the form of expedited permits or preferential funding. The District and the EPD should establish a recognition program for identifying, publicizing, and rewarding successful partnerships. While this effort should be focused on local governments and service providers, it also should be coordinated with public education and involvement efforts. WATER SUPPLY AND WATER CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT PLAN DATE: SEPTEMBER 2003 P:\2317-002\TASK 13\FINAL REPORT SEP. 2003\FINAL WORD\SECTION 14 WS-GOVERNANCE.DOC 14-7 Section 14: Governance and Inter-jurisdictional Collaboration Inter-jurisdictional Relationships Use of these tools involves the active participation of multiple organizations. Figure 14-2 illustrates the relationships between the entities involved in governance of the water systems in the District. FIGURE 14-2 Future Structure and Roles Conclusions In combination, these new tools for inter-jurisdictional cooperation, along with traditional tools and others mentioned elsewhere in this document, form a robust system of incentives for local action that supports District Plans, and disincentives for actions that undermine District-wide needs. While the benefit of inter-jurisdictional agreements is proven, there are specific obstacles that the District must overcome in order to realize improved and mutually beneficial arrangements for sharing water resources, and serving an expanding population Key strategies for advancing inter-jurisdictional collaboration and successful implementation have been identified: Continue using existing tools Prepare model inter-jurisdictional agreements WATER SUPPLY AND WATER CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT PLAN DATE: SEPTEMBER 2003 P:\2317-002\TASK 13\FINAL REPORT SEP. 2003\FINAL WORD\SECTION 14 WS-GOVERNANCE.DOC 14-8 Section 14: Governance and Inter-jurisdictional Collaboration Establish a fair share funding formula framework Assure an appropriate level of service Establish a formal dispute resolution system Increase the State role in compliance with the WS Plan and project sponsorship Establish a formal amendment process Publicize and reward success partnerships WATER SUPPLY AND WATER CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT PLAN DATE: SEPTEMBER 2003 P:\2317-002\TASK 13\FINAL REPORT SEP. 2003\FINAL WORD\SECTION 14 WS-GOVERNANCE.DOC 14-9 Section 15 Funding Successful implementation of the Water Supply and Water Conservation Plan (WS Plan) hinges on the ability to fund the programmatic measures, capital improvements, and monitoring activities. A range of funding options for District needs was examined, including current and innovative funding mechanisms. Currently, water projects in the District are funded locally. This is expected to continue into the future. Long-term, the most critical funding needs for implementing the WS Plan are for capital facility improvements and maintenance, local planning, water conservation programs, public education, and ongoing District operations. Of these, the funding of facility improvements is the most challenging, due to the difficulty of arranging for timely financing of needed improvements, especially those that serve two or more communities. Spread over the next 30 years, investment in water supply, treatment, and distribution systems in the District is expected to reach $9.6 billion. An additional $16.6 billion will be expended on operation and maintenance of these systems. Funding the recommended programmatic measures for water management will require approximately $231 million. Local Funding Water infrastructure in the District is sponsored and funded almost exclusively by local governments or their local utilities. The primary funding source for is local revenue bonds that are repaid through user fees. These are supplemented to varying degrees by State loans, local general obligation bonds, general fund appropriations, local sales taxes, and/or development impact fees. In a very small number of cases, the private sector funds facilities. Funding Action No. 1 - Fund capital improvements primarily by local participants. Local governments and utilities will need to budget funds for several activities required to ensure consistency with the WS Plan. The cost of these efforts can be considered part of capital costs, or paid for directly out of utility revenues. Some additional costs will be associated with water conservation programs, and participation in other District activities, as discussed elsewhere. Funding for this work will be the responsibility of each of the local governments, and can be funded through utility revenues or through the general fund, depending on local guidelines. WATER SUPPLY AND WATER CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT PLAN DATE: SEPTEMBER 2003 P:\2317-002\TASK 13\FINAL REPORT SEP. 2003\FINAL WORD\SECTION 15 WS- FUNDING.DOC 15-1 Section 15: Funding State Gap Financing The traditional system of individual jurisdictions financing their own facilities through longterm bonds is not well suited to meeting the needs of an integrated water/wastewater system that serves multiple jurisdictions. Debt ceilings and the cost of financing vary greatly from locality to locality, because bonds are issued based on a community's financial strength and a verifiable revenue stream for debt retirement. Each jurisdiction must balance use of its bonding capacity (both general obligation and revenue) among a variety of improvements beyond water, such as roads, public buildings, or parks. Because water utilities typically operate as enterprise funds and have the ability to recover costs through user fees, revenue bonds will be the preferred funding mechanism, leaving general obligation bonds for other non-revenue producing improvements. While communities with well-established utility systems usually are able to seek their own bond funding on the strength of their local government and the utility's projected revenue stream, communities with no or small systems are unable to cost-effectively use revenue bond financing. They often rely on the low-cost loans available through the Georgia Environmental Facilities Authority (GEFA), which leverages the financial strength of the State. GEFA's ability to provide low interest financing originates from three sources: The Georgia Fund, capitalized with state general obligation bonds and the 1997 Authority's State guaranteed revenue bonds; Clean Water State Revolving Fund (SRF), which is funded with federal grants and 20 percent state match; and Drinking Water SRF, which is capitalized with federal grants and 20 percent state match. Collectively, these sources, along with their respective repayments, currently total $115 million annually. Loans have a maximum term of 20 years from the date that construction is expected to be complete and interest rates that vary with market conditions at the time they were made, based on the State's last general obligation bond sale. The rates have ranged from approximately 4 percent to approximately 6 percent. Presently, the interest rate on Georgia Fund Loans is 3.98 percent and the interest rate for both SRFs is 3 percent. Capitalized interest is permitted during the construction period; this cost is added to the borrower's loan balance, then amortized over the life of the loan. Since 1999, interest earnings from repaid loans have covered the costs of operations, thereby allowing GEFA to be self-funded. The success of the WS Plan hinges on facilities providing service to multiple jurisdictions. More often than not, project partners will have different timing needs for the facilities and different abilities to pay. In fact, District Plans anticipate that some communities that are just beginning to develop will need to partner with neighboring older communities that can lead infrastructure development. Both communities will need assistance to finance improvements in advance of customers' connections to the system and paying fees that can be used to retire the debt. The older community may be unwilling to use its full bonding capacity to pay for facilities that do not directly benefit its residents, and the emerging communities are unlikely to have adequate WATER SUPPLY AND WATER CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT PLAN DATE: SEPTEMBER 2003 P:\2317-002\TASK 13\FINAL REPORT SEP. 2003\FINAL WORD\SECTION 15 WS- FUNDING.DOC 15-2 Section 15: Funding cash or bond capacity to offer their fair share at a project's inception. Even with good faith agreements and strong political will on the part of both parties, this type of project will stall. Without a new level of assistance from the State, timely progress to needed projects will be in jeopardy. Funding Action No. 2 - Increase gap financing available through GEFA loan funds. While the full extent of GEFA's funding potential is worthy of analysis beyond the scope of this planning effort, four actions should be considered in the near future: Increase GEFA loan cap. First, GEFA's enabling legislation could be amended, removing the restriction that limits the amount of bonds that GEFA could have outstanding at any one time. Currently, the debt service limit is a figure not to exceed 1 percent of State revenues for the prior fiscal year. Since the State revenues are approximately $15 billion, GEFA is limited to a debt service at any one time of $150 million. (This debt service would include the current outstanding GEFA general obligation debt issued by the State, as well as the GEFA Guaranteed Revenue debt.) At the prevailing interest rate of 3.98 percent, the maximum amount of outstanding bonds at any given time is limited to $2.5 billion. Through GEFA, communities are able to borrow an aggregate of $35 million to $38 million from federal, State and repayment sources. The loan cap should be raised substantially by leveraging the federal grants through the issuance of bonds to provide funding for a portion of the loans. Under this scenario, GEFA could increase the caps for individual loans, and/or become a more attractive option to larger or fiscally stronger communities, since current programs are targeted to smaller, rural areas. This expanded capacity for GEFA would assure that traditional recipients of GEFA funds would not be subsidizing District projects. Preliminary estimates show the potential loan capacity is between $3.6 billion to $7.2 billion over 20 years, provided the State maintains its current annual investment. Ideally, the amount of the increase could be set aside for District projects, since traditionally most GEFA funding is directed outside the District's 16 counties. Allocate money to District projects. Second, GEFA could modify its loan criteria to give preference to District projects, at least for a portion of GEFA's loan portfolio. There are several ways that this could be done. One simple method would be to use the current selection criteria, but allow for multi-year funded projects, and give priority to projects that met associated financial and environmental prerequisites and are scheduled to issue a notice to proceed within six months. The same could be done for other State loans or grants. Increase individual loan cap. Third, GEFA could increase the caps for individual loans, and/or open eligibility for loans to larger or fiscally stronger communities, since current programs are targeted to smaller, rural areas. This would need to be done while assuring traditional recipients of GEFA funds that will still need assistance, that they would not be subsidizing District projects. Extend period of capitalized interest. Fourth, terms and conditions of loans and bonds could be modified to allow for longer periods of capitalized interest. GEFA's practice has been to issue loans that do not exceed 20 years and by statute cannot exceed a maturity of 25 years, since local governments are accustomed to 30 or 40-year terms. Another condition that could be WATER SUPPLY AND WATER CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT PLAN DATE: SEPTEMBER 2003 P:\2317-002\TASK 13\FINAL REPORT SEP. 2003\FINAL WORD\SECTION 15 WS- FUNDING.DOC 15-3 Section 15: Funding revised is an allowance of balloon payments in the future when the customer base has increased to better support the debt. This would involve the State accepting some risk in return for better advance planning, property acquisition, and construction of distribution, conveyance, and treatment facilities. Federal Funding The District is likely to be more successful in winning direct federal appropriations for grants or program support if its members present a collective appeal to Congressional leaders and agency officials. While federal appropriations should not be considered a routine source of funds, they can serve special capital needs or unique programs. Funding Action No. 3 - Increase federal funding through a unified funding appeal from the District for federal assistance. The District should lead the development of a unified annual or multi-year funding request from the 16 counties to federal agencies and officials. This would demonstrate clarity of purpose; the capacity for collaboration among local, regional, and State interests; and would eliminate the need for federal staff or elected officials to select among competing local requests. This would require the equivalent of the regional transportation planning process that metropolitan planning organizations, such as the Atlanta Regional Commission, use to prioritize funding requests, and to balance needs and fiscal resources. Part of a unified appeal could emphasize District efforts in a way that distinguishes the 16county area nationally. This concurrent regional water, wastewater and watershed planning effort undertaken by the District is unique. The District should consider seeking federal funds for a demonstration project that advances this innovative "Total Water Management Approach." District Operations The funds required for District operations will depend on the roles and tasks ultimately assigned to the District. At a minimum, the District is expected to continue to serve as a forum for dialogue and decision making, a monitor of plan progress, a liaison for District members with State officials, and the preparer of the 5-year plan update. Other possible roles include continued planning efforts, technical assistance; and research and development of model programs, projects, or ordinances for local governments. Four basic sources are available to support District operating functions. First, as now, local governments are likely to bear primary responsibility for funding basic District functions, probably based on a fair share formula developed by District members. State funding for routine District operations was included in Senate Bill 130 for only the District's first years, but should be sought at some level permanently, to ensure that the State's interests in metropolitan north Georgia are addressed. Third, federal funding, especially for special studies, programs or projects should be considered a reasonable, and actively sought, supplement to routine funding. Congressional appropriations and/or federal agency grants should not be considered as likely WATER SUPPLY AND WATER CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT PLAN DATE: SEPTEMBER 2003 P:\2317-002\TASK 13\FINAL REPORT SEP. 2003\FINAL WORD\SECTION 15 WS- FUNDING.DOC 15-4 Section 15: Funding sources of operating funds. Finally, private grants may be reasonably sought, but primarily for special projects. Funding Action No. 4 - Fund District activities. Funding for specific District operations or activities could be provided by directly affected governments, or requested as state or federal grant funds. The District Board, comprised of representatives from local jurisdictions, can choose the activities that the District undertakes. Some optional activities it may wish to undertake include providing technical assistance to local governments on septic tank policies, facilitation of inter-jurisdictional agreements, or public education. As activities are authorized, their cost will need to be funded. Public-Private Partnerships Public-private partnerships usually involve an agreement between the public agency that needs the project, designating who will eventually become the project owner, and the private entity that will actually build the project. The private entity may, but will not necessarily, serve as operator. The types of public-private partnerships for the design, construction, operation, and ownership of water facilities are as follows: Contract Operations Concession Design Build Design-Build-Operate Build-Own-Operate-Transfer Sale of the Assets The advantage of the public-private partnership is its potential opportunity to gain excellent service at very competitive prices, when compared to the traditional ways of delivering the project or the service. Results can often be achieved more quickly if that is a desired goal. The disadvantage of public-private partnerships is that contracts have to be well thought-out and developed, such that the public interest is protected. This is not necessarily easy to achieve. The service is no longer provided under the direct influence of employees of the local government agency headed by elected officials, which can be especially significant in long duration contracts. Experience has shown that public-private partnerships suffer when comprehensive, fair, and realistic performance goals have not been established for all parties to the contract. Funding Action No. 5 - Evaluate opportunities for public-private partnerships. The use of public-private partnerships to provide water services has grown in the District. This trend could well continue as the recommended plans are implemented. Opportunities for cost effective and beneficial public-private partnerships might occur with larger facilities that become regionalized, requiring significant capacity expansions using the best technologies. In other circumstances, small private facilities may serve the interim needs of a community until adequate demand for a public facility is established. WATER SUPPLY AND WATER CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT PLAN DATE: SEPTEMBER 2003 P:\2317-002\TASK 13\FINAL REPORT SEP. 2003\FINAL WORD\SECTION 15 WS- FUNDING.DOC 15-5 Section 15: Funding Water utilities in the District should evaluate the situations in which public-private partnerships might be appropriate, or at least be prepared to respond to unsolicited appeals that they will likely receive from private industry sources. Upon request, the District could play a role in facilitating a dialogue on the issues, and in evaluating the best uses and pitfalls of public-private partnerships. WATER SUPPLY AND WATER CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT PLAN DATE: SEPTEMBER 2003 P:\2317-002\TASK 13\FINAL REPORT SEP. 2003\FINAL WORD\SECTION 15 WS- FUNDING.DOC 15-6 Section 16 Education and Public Awareness Purpose Senate Bill 130 mandated the preparation of a Water Supply and Water Conservation Management Plan (WS Plan) for the 16-county Metropolitan North Georgia Water Planning District (District). As part of the WS Plan, Senate Bill 130 requires the development of an Education and Public Awareness (E&PA) program that will outline measures the District can implement to raise public awareness of water supply and water conservation management issues and educate target groups that have some level of influence over water management. The provisions include the following: Raising public awareness of water supply and conservation issues among 75 to 90 percent of the District's population by 2006; Educating the public and identified target groups in order to increase awareness and encourage behavioral changes; and Coordinating with existing agencies and governmental entities to maximize the visibility of the District and its message. In order to meet this legislative directive, a comprehensive E&PA Plan for Water Supply and Water Conservation Management must be effectively implemented to educate the public, build public confidence, and change individual behaviors regarding water supply, including indirect potable reuse, and water conservation measures. The E&PA Plan must be coordinated and integrated with the E&PA Plans for the District-wide Watershed Management Plan and the Long-term Wastewater Management Plan. A single comprehensive E&PA program is recommended, incorporating measures from all three District plans. Education and Public Awareness Plan Approach Campaign Identity The Long-term Wastewater Management Plan, the District-wide Watershed Management Plan, and this WS Plan share the same goal adequate clean water. This overarching theme of the District will support the education and public awareness messages and can be combined with the Clean Water Campaign (CWC) to effectively and economically enhance and uphold the goals of both the District and the CWC. The CWC is an existing collaborative effort spearheaded WATER SUPPLY AND WATER CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT PLAN DATE: SEPTEMBER 2003 P:\2317-002\TASK 13\FINAL REPORT SEP. 2003\FINAL WORD\SECTION 16 WS- EDUCATION & PUBLIC AWARENESS.DOC 16-1 Section 16: Education and Public Awareness by a group of 20 governments in the metro Atlanta area and is managed by the Atlanta Regional Commission. Its mission is to educate metro residents about the impacts of polluted stormwater runoff on our lakes, rivers and streams and our water supplies, recreational areas and aquatic habitat. The District can help expand the CWC with components of water supply and conservation education and public awareness. Campaign Elements Educating the public on issues concerning water supply and conservation, such as equitable sharing of water resources, indirect potable reuse, interconnections between water systems, and implementation of water conservation programs, is a crucial building block towards gaining acceptance and raising awareness of the residents in the 16-county District. By learning more about the subject and obtaining new and accurate information, the public may respond with a change of attitudes and behaviors toward these issues. With more knowledge, residents can make informed decisions when forming opinions and behaving in their daily lives. Three elements have been incorporated into the campaign: Element 1 Public Awareness Campaign. Senate Bill 130 established a goal of reaching 75 to 90 percent of the District's population by 2006. To achieve this goal, virtually every household in the District must be reached multiple times with clear, concise messages. This element will use multiple methods to present information to the general public and target audiences. Element 2 Outreach and Education to key target groups. Senate Bill 130 mandates that the District develop programs to educate target groups of individuals who have some level of influence over the decisions to be made concerning water supply and conservation. Element 3 Primary and Secondary Education. The objective of this element is to educate the next generation, i.e., school-aged children, on ways to conserve water to ensure protection of our future water resources. In keeping with the goals of shared responsibility for implementation and leveraging existing programs, the entity or entities responsible for implementation are identified for each recommended activity. Opportunities for the District to partner with other organizations to fund and implement various recommendations are also described. The active cooperation and participation of local governments, businesses, and state agencies will be important during the WS Plan implementation. Solutions proposed by the WS Plan will succeed only if the responsible entities embrace the concept of regional solutions to water supply management. These entities should view the WS Plan as a guideline requiring collaboration and partnership to achieve regional water management improvement. WATER SUPPLY AND WATER CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT PLAN DATE: SEPTEMBER 2003 P:\2317-002\TASK 13\FINAL REPORT SEP. 2003\FINAL WORD\SECTION 16 WS- EDUCATION & PUBLIC AWARENESS.DOC 16-2 Section 16: Education and Public Awareness Element 1: Public Awareness Campaign A mass media campaign would be the quickest and most successful way to meet the goal of reaching 75 to 90 percent of the District's population. However, reaching out by way of paid local and public television, newspaper advertising and radio spots can be very costly. Therefore, it is recommended that the District use specific strategies that would limit the cost of these outreach methods. The District should attempt to prepare public education materials in English, Spanish, and Korean, incorporating expressive visual messages to aid in understanding. Mass Media Mass media recommendations include the following: Commercials and public service announcements (PSAs); Interviews with a District representative on local television shows such as Fox 5's Good Day Atlanta, or Channel 46's Good Morning Atlanta; Conversations on Atlanta's top ten radio stations as identified by a ratings company such as the Arbitron Company; Messages on MARTA buses or billboards; and Newspaper advertisements, articles, or inserts in local newspapers throughout the District and the Atlanta Journal-Constitution. The campaign identity, messages, logo, and slogan will be developed near the beginning of the implementation process in association with the CWC. The proposed campaign is based on the recommendation that the CWC identity will be expanded to encompass the WS Plan as well as other District Plans. However, messages that specifically address water supply and conservation management issues would also be developed. The messages, logo, and slogan should be tested on focus groups current members of the Basin Advisory Councils (BACs) and/or members of the Technical Coordinating Committee (TCC). There are four key water supply and conservation messages on which the District will be placing an emphasis as it educates its stakeholders. The messages will be conveyed to the general public and specific groups as described in later sections of this campaign plan, and will include: Equitable sharing of water resources within the District to meet local needs; Indirect potable reuse, which consists of returning highly treated reclaimed water to the natural environment (reservoir, storage reservoir, or stream) where it is mixed with receiving waters and eventually reused, and is a valuable means of supplementing the District's water supply; Interconnections between water systems provide reliability and efficient use of resources (most important to local governments); and Implementation of water conservation program extends the District's available water supply resources. The water conservation program includes the following elements, which should be a major focus of the campaign to get the best value and accomplish the intent of the law: o Conservation pricing WATER SUPPLY AND WATER CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT PLAN DATE: SEPTEMBER 2003 P:\2317-002\TASK 13\FINAL REPORT SEP. 2003\FINAL WORD\SECTION 16 WS- EDUCATION & PUBLIC AWARENESS.DOC 16-3 Section 16: Education and Public Awareness o Unaccounted-for-water reduction program o Ultra low flow toilet retrofit on resale o Require 0.5 gallon per flush urinals for new industrial/commercial/institutional buildings o Rain sensor regulations for new irrigation systems o Residential shower retrofit kit distribution o Multi-family sub-metering for new developments o Modified residential and commercial water audits This WS Plan recommends a mass media campaign be undertaken in the first year, followed by continued use of alternative media in subsequent years. Alternative Media A strong public awareness campaign maximizes the amount of exposure to the interested stakeholders, while remaining cost-effective. While the legislative mandate to reach 75 to 90 percent of the public will require a "blanketing" of information, it is critical to support and balance mass contact with a targeted outreach, to insure that the greatest possible number of people are reached in a manner that will be effective and relatively low-cost. Successful outreach mechanisms with a proven track record include the following alternative activities: Newspaper inserts. The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, The Gwinnett Daily Post, and other local newspapers can be used to advertise with special section inserts, or become a partner and assist with the educational effort for the District's Plans by running periodic inserts in the newspaper. The inserts will detail certain topics such as water conservation measures. A completely paid section can be created by the District for insert into the paper, or the District can propose potential advertisers or partners and sponsors to help offset the cost of producing the section. Non-paid publicity: TV interviews. District staff and members can give interviews on local television talk shows regarding the WS Plan. Some possible morning shows include Fox 5's Good Day Atlanta or Channel 46's Good Morning Atlanta. Local evening news shows are also a possibility, particularly in conjunction with the weather report. Another excellent program for water resource management topics is the Georgia Week in Review on GPTV. Paid publicity: TV and radio. Recurring messages can be prepared for presentation on television and radio. Full 60-second radio advertising or morning and afternoon traffic sponsorships are two possibilities. These radio announcements should run on Atlanta's top rated shows. Promotional Items Promotional items are a low-cost, effective way to establish recognition of a water supply and conservation awareness program. They are also an excellent tool for reinforcing messages that can be condensed to a few words and are ideal for advertising websites, important telephone numbers, and other short information. Promotional items can be distributed at public gatherings and other events related to this WS Plan. Less expensive items (pens, pencils, WATER SUPPLY AND WATER CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT PLAN DATE: SEPTEMBER 2003 P:\2317-002\TASK 13\FINAL REPORT SEP. 2003\FINAL WORD\SECTION 16 WS- EDUCATION & PUBLIC AWARENESS.DOC 16-4 Section 16: Education and Public Awareness magnets) can be purchased in bulk for distribution to the general public. A smaller quantity of more expensive items (T-shirts, hats, mugs) can be purchased and distributed to local officials, BAC members, and other interested stakeholders. Bill inserts and messages. A cost-effective method to reach a wide segment of the public is the use of bill inserts or messages to all water and sewer customers. While the use of bill inserts or messages will meet the targeted 75 to 90 percent of the District's population as required by Senate Bill 130, the information is not solely effective as a communication tool, since BAC polling indicated that many people do not read the bill inserts or messages. However, it is a good supplement to the mass media campaign. Brochures, fact sheets, and other literature. A tri-fold brochure with water conservation tips and messages will be produced and distributed throughout the District to all audiences. Fact sheets are available on each of the District's three plans and can be distributed to all audiences. Building partnerships. Community relations, community partnerships, media/PSAs, and word-of-mouth will be allies that will maximize the message, while fostering attitude and behavioral changes. A cost-effective method would be to partner with existing outreach programs such as Project WET and the CWC. Informational materials will be provided to the listed program partners for distribution. Some programs will incorporate water supply and conservation information into their existing materials. Lesson plans will be written and submitted to Environmental Education in Georgia at the DNR for distribution and implementation by Project WET. This information can also be included as part of an information clearinghouse that will be further described later in this section. Educational videos. A 10-minute video on broad and specific subjects can present information more effectively and efficiently to large audiences than pages of written material. Many studies have shown that information can be communicated quicker, retained longer, and that it will have a more lasting effect if done through a visual medium. Facility tours and informational materials at treatment plant grounds. Some local water service providers have tours available at their facilities. Tours can be arranged for school trips or other audiences. Informational materials such as brochures and fact sheets will be available for distribution at participating facilities. Focus groups. The public will be involved in the implementation of the WS Plan, wherever possible. The use of focus groups will facilitate education and public awareness. Focus groups, facilitated by District staff, will be used to survey the general public's acceptance of the District's goals and to give insight into the target audience's existing values, behaviors, and beliefs. Website pages. The District and participating local governments have websites in place, some with the ability to track "hits." This activity consists of producing information on related technical solutions and issues and providing that information via web pages for District members. Web pages can document program initiatives, partnerships (particularly with CWC), and outcomes; provide information about the general water messages; and provide online education with modules on water conservation measures. WATER SUPPLY AND WATER CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT PLAN DATE: SEPTEMBER 2003 P:\2317-002\TASK 13\FINAL REPORT SEP. 2003\FINAL WORD\SECTION 16 WS- EDUCATION & PUBLIC AWARENESS.DOC 16-5 Section 16: Education and Public Awareness Interactive CD-ROM or website. An interactive CD-ROM can be produced at a relatively low cost. The interactive CD-ROM should contain content that helps users learn about water supply resources, including conservation measures and water supply issues. Clickable maps supported by Geographic Information Systems (GIS) data would allow participants to focus on specific areas within the District. Alternatively, an interactive website can be developed in lieu of an interactive CD, to allow for changes, updates, and version control. Portable interactive kiosk. An interactive kiosk provides a way for the District to take the water management issues to the public and help to reinforce the connection with the CWC. The kiosk would be equipped with connections for a laptop computer that could be provided by the entity using the kiosk. The interactive CD-ROM or website would be available for viewing, along with literature, posters, brochures, and other promotional items. The kiosk can be used at events scheduled by local governmental organizations, state agencies, community groups, and other organizations. The kiosk can also be used at focus groups or Speakers Bureau presentations. It can be used at public schools and at public centers, such as libraries and local government offices, or county fairs and festivals. Posters. Two posters are recommended, one on water conservation measures, and another on the relationship of water supply with wastewater and stormwater and the "user." These posters can be distributed as promotional items. Speaker's package. Continual discussions with the public on the implementation of the WS Plan's recommended solutions will be needed now and well into the future. A Speakers Bureau will be an effective use of budgeted funds with the use of local government, District, state agency staff, and water professionals. Speakers with related technical backgrounds can be enlisted throughout the District to speak within their geographic area. This is an effective method of targeting various audiences and communicating the issues and messages on several levels. The cost will be in the preparation and production of materials and presentation tools. The speakers will volunteer their time or be supported by their organizations. The speaker's package will include a presentation in PowerPoint format, the 10-minute video, fact sheets on the District's planning efforts, and brochures on related topics including water conservation measures, sharing water resources within the District, and supplementing water supply by indirect potable reuse. Corporate outreach program. The District should explore partnerships similar to the Clean Air Campaign, which oversees an employer outreach program that encourages employers to help employees participate in commuting programs, such as carpooling and free rides home. The District should explore a similar partnership arrangement with local firms that allow the CWC to display materials related to the water supply and conservation (i.e., posters and brochures) in their workplace. The employers who agree to display these materials could get a designation or certification for display from CWC. WATER SUPPLY AND WATER CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT PLAN DATE: SEPTEMBER 2003 P:\2317-002\TASK 13\FINAL REPORT SEP. 2003\FINAL WORD\SECTION 16 WS- EDUCATION & PUBLIC AWARENESS.DOC 16-6 Section 16: Education and Public Awareness Element 2 Outreach and Education to Key Target Groups Identifying and targeting the audience. The District needs to identify and target the audience that will facilitate the success of the E&PA Campaign. The critical audience is comprised of stakeholders, such as local service providers, local governments, water utilities and authorities, private companies, elected officials, private business owners (such as developers), water professionals, educational institutions, and the general public. Identifying and educating the stakeholders as a collective audience helps create a single voice for regional solutions, while it also provides decision-makers with the necessary information to move forward with the implementation of the WS Plan. This will decrease the influence of local politics, while it strengthens the rationale for regional economic vitality and environmental health. Stakeholder participation in implementation of the WS Plan will facilitate consensus and induce a sense of ownership in the process. This will lay the foundation for behavioral changes and acceptance of a regional identity, two critical components to balancing local needs with regional solutions. Table 16-1 illustrates the recommended stakeholders that will be targeted for the education and awareness program using the proposed outreach activities: TABLE 16-1 Communication Activities and Audiences Developers Homeowners Water Service Providers Businesses Elected Officials General Public Water Professionals Educational Institutions Activity Speaker's package X X X X X X X Website X X X X X X Brochures, fact sheets, bill messages X X X X X X Displays (outside) X X X X Displays (inside) X X X X Media/PSAs X X X X X X Visual messages X X X X X Focus groups X X X X X Partnerships X X X X Training program X X X X X X Recognition program X X X X X In-school education X WATER SUPPLY AND WATER CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT PLAN DATE: SEPTEMBER 2003 P:\2317-002\TASK 13\FINAL REPORT SEP. 2003\FINAL WORD\SECTION 16 WS- EDUCATION & PUBLIC AWARENESS.DOC 16-7 Section 16: Education and Public Awareness Four activities are proposed to facilitate the delivery of education and outreach to key target groups in Element 2: target group survey, establishment of an information clearinghouse, creation of a key target group database, and workshops. These are discussed as follows: Target group survey. When distributing information, it is critical to disseminate the right information to the right people at the right time. Therefore, a baseline survey should be conducted among the target groups to identify their needs and how best to meet those needs. Key target groups can include associations, business groups, professional organizations, state agencies, local governments, educational institutions, homeowner associations, and the general public. By working with established groups, the District can communicate more effectively with the members through mailings and special events. This would be an economic choice for saving costs on postage, research, and other items. Based on the survey results, the District can modify message delivery techniques. Information clearinghouse. The District should establish an information clearinghouse by gathering as much outreach information as possible from other programs. This clearinghouse would act as a library for educational materials and could be catalogued through a database available on the District's website. The District would maintain and update the database as new materials are obtained. Partners in the clearinghouse would be able to check the database, so as not to duplicate efforts. Workshops. Several agencies and organizations offer training and workshops to the general public, businesses and industry in a variety of water-related issues, such as P2AD, Adopt-aStream, Riverkeepers, and CWC, Consumer Water Center of American Water Works Association (AWWA), Georgia Municipal Association (GMA) Association County Commissions of Georgia (ACCG), and the Georgia Water & Pollution Control Association (GWPCA). Key target groups. Key target groups would require more technical training related to water supply and water conservation measures specific to their respective businesses. The primary role for the District in delivering training to key target groups is to serve as the coordinating agency. To make this task manageable, it is recommended that the District partner with a limited number of agencies and organizations that offer training. Specific target groups should include: Local service providers. Local service providers include local governments, and water utilities and authorities. There are more than 40 service providers within the District. Inter-jurisdictional cooperation is important to the successful implementation of the WS Plan. Equitable decisions are imperative as well. This audience requires recurring messaging due to the changes in elected officials and governmental staff. Utility employees and elected officials also need education about the issues surrounding indirect potable reuse and water conservation methods, such as pricing structures and the implementation of various water conservation measures for their customers. Private service companies. Private companies include businesses related to water management, such as companies that design and install plumbing fixtures, and realty companies that need to understand the retrofit on resale requirement. This audience WATER SUPPLY AND WATER CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT PLAN DATE: SEPTEMBER 2003 P:\2317-002\TASK 13\FINAL REPORT SEP. 2003\FINAL WORD\SECTION 16 WS- EDUCATION & PUBLIC AWARENESS.DOC 16-8 Section 16: Education and Public Awareness needs to be educated on the need to incorporate water conservation measures into the daily lives of their customers. State agencies. The DNR and EPD are responsible for setting and enforcing standards for long-range plans, such as the WS Plan. Through authorization contained in the Georgia Water Supply Act (OCGA 12-5-470), DNR has broad powers to sponsor, construct, and operate water treatment facilities and distribution systems, and to contract with local governments to provide water services. Further, DNR can contract with other entities to achieve these ends. To date, this tool has been applied primarily to the development of reservoirs. The law, however, provides the opportunity for DNR to initiate critical or stalled District projects. In order to exercise this power, DNR can establish a separate staffing function for project sponsorship, to assure separation of the agency's dual roles as implementer and enforcer (through EPD) or delegate the task to other entities Elected officials. Elected officials need to be informed of the happenings and critical issues within the District. Because they are influential figures, their constituents will contact them with questions and suggestions. They are also in a position to spread information regarding District activities. Having this group well informed and educated will be an integral part of the public awareness campaign. Georgia Environmental Facilities Authority. GEFA provides grants and low-interest water and wastewater loans to Georgia's communities. While larger service providers issue their own revenue bonds, many smaller providers rely on GEFA loans for capital improvements. Its funding capability, and perhaps its mission, will need to be expanded to ensure that adequate levels of funding are available when needed, and that local governments have more robust support for project implementation. Water professionals. Water Professionals include those technical professionals who are members of the numerous technical organizations, such as the GWPCA, AWWA, American Water Resources Association, Association of County Commissioners of Georgia, Georgia Municipal Association, and the American Society of Civil Engineers. Water professionals need to be briefed on the process and solutions within the WS Plan for their understanding, and to ensure that there is a coordinated approach that supports the goals of the District. Homeowners. Homeowners must be educated about water conservation and new pricing structures for water supply. They must also change their behaviors and attitudes about water conservation measures, such as retrofit on resale and rain sensors for outdoor irrigation systems. WATER SUPPLY AND WATER CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT PLAN DATE: SEPTEMBER 2003 P:\2317-002\TASK 13\FINAL REPORT SEP. 2003\FINAL WORD\SECTION 16 WS- EDUCATION & PUBLIC AWARENESS.DOC 16-9 Section 16: Education and Public Awareness Element 3 Primary and Secondary Education Changing the attitudes and behaviors of our future generations to support the initiatives in the District plans will ensure more protection for our water resources. Therefore, a component of the E&PA program needs to be directed towards school-aged children, designed to reach primary and secondary students within the District. While changing behavior takes time, a study by the Center for Watershed Protection shows that behavioral changes are aided by educating children. Schools are also in a unique position to disseminate information to families of school-age children. This is a large audience that can be effectively reached through cooperative efforts with educational institutions. Programs that emphasize the use of interactive materials, handouts sent home with students, and educational modules geared toward long-term behaviors can have permanent effects on each successive generation. Existing environmental curricula should be supported, and where possible, District-specific information should be integrated into the curricula of schools throughout the District. Support Georgia's Project WET (Water Education for Teachers) The District should support the efforts of Georgia's Project WET to promote environmental education in District Schools by encouraging the use of its programs within the District. District representatives should decide if appropriate lessons are available, or if a water supply and water conservation specific lesson should be submitted for inclusion in the environmental education curricula. WaterWise Education The District should investigate the lessons available through the Georgia WaterWise Council to determine if they have appropriate water supply and conservation lessons for grades kindergarten through 12. Currently, 30 public school systems in Georgia use the WaterWise Water Source Book as part of their science curriculum. Develop Localized Information To educate and promote clean water to the primary and secondary levels, the District should develop modules for incorporation into school curricula being developed by Project WET, the Environmental Education Alliance for Georgia, Georgia Project for Excellence in Environmental Education, or Georgia WaterWise Council. The modules would include the following: General information on water conservation measures. Information that specifically teaches the water supply efforts, such as indirect potable reuse and the role of reservoirs. Providing teachers with more opportunities for planning field trips, such as facility tours, and encouraging students to become more aware of where their water comes from and how it is treated and reused. Providing students with information they can share with parents, who may help reinforce the District's efforts to increase adult awareness of water supply and conservation issues. WATER SUPPLY AND WATER CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT PLAN DATE: SEPTEMBER 2003 P:\2317-002\TASK 13\FINAL REPORT SEP. 2003\FINAL WORD\SECTION 16 WS- EDUCATION & PUBLIC AWARENESS.DOC 16-10 Section 16: Education and Public Awareness Other Recommended Activities Business Sponsorships Partnerships with corporations and business organizations can enhance the success of the District's campaign by lending endorsements, adding credibility, and providing assistance in the form of human and financial resources. The District should pursue additional partnerships with large and medium-size companies that have a substantial presence in the District, and with organizations (such as the various Chambers of Commerce) that can influence policy decisions through their connections with elected officials and business leaders. Business sponsors can assist with promotion, events and staffing. In return for their participation, business sponsors could be granted a special designation (such as being a Bronze, Silver, Gold, or Platinum sponsor, corresponding to their contribution level) and a token of recognition, such as a plaque or having their name added to outreach information. Business sponsors would also be encouraged to display their sponsorship designation prominently in their promotional and advertising materials. Agency Partnerships The District should form partnerships with state and other government agencies that are providing education and services that overlap those that correspond with the District's goals such as those presented in Table 16-2. Other Partnerships The District should form partnerships with local colleges and universities to enlist their assistance in activities, such as developing and implementing surveys, developing training curriculum, writing fact sheets, and staffing District events. Additionally, it is recommended that the District continue to work with the BACs in the implementation of the E&PA Campaign. BAC members can participate in focus groups, as well as serve as members of the Speakers Bureau and assist the District with obtaining support from corporations, agencies, and organizations with which they have relationships. Many other partnering opportunities exist. Table 16-2 shows a list of possible partners with whom the District could consider working. In addition, Appendix C includes a list of possible sponsoring organizations provided by the Clean Water Campaign Education Coordinator. TABLE 16-2 Existing Water Resource Education Programs in the District Program Georgia Adopt-A-Stream/Rivers Alive Gwinnett County Clean & Beautiful Coordinating Organization Location Target Region Atlanta Cobb, Douglas, Fulton, Clayton, DeKalb, Rockdale, Gwinnett, Cherokee counties Lawrenceville Gwinnett County Gwinnett County Adopt-A-StreamBeautiful Lawns/Healthy Streams Gwinnett County Stormwater Department Lawrenceville Lawrenceville Gwinnett County Gwinnett County WATER SUPPLY AND WATER CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT PLAN DATE: SEPTEMBER 2003 P:\2317-002\TASK 13\FINAL REPORT SEP. 2003\FINAL WORD\SECTION 16 WS- EDUCATION & PUBLIC AWARENESS.DOC 16-11 Section 16: Education and Public Awareness Program Coordinating Organization Location City of Griffin Stormwater Department Griffin Griffin Target Region Cobb County Water System Marietta Cobb County Adopt-A-Stream Marietta Upper Chattahoochee Riverkeeper Atlanta Sierra Club Georgia Department of Community Affairs Atlanta Atlanta Georgia DNR, Environmental Protection Atlanta Division Georgia DNR, Pollution Prevention Assistance Division Atlanta Georgia DNR, State Water Conservation Savannah Coordinator Douglasville-Douglas County Water & Douglasville Sewer Authority Rockdale County Water Resources Conyers City of Alpharetta, Georgia Alpharetta City of Atlanta Department of Water Atlanta Evergreen School Program Water Smart: Cobb County - Marietta Water Authority Fulton County Water Resource Management Program Clayton County Water Authority DeKalb County Roswell Marietta Atlanta Morrow Decatur Project WET/River of Words Clean Water Campaign Atlanta Atlanta Georgia Waterwise Council Water Source Book The Georgia Conservancy Chattahoochee Nature Center The Trust For Public Land-Atlanta Smart Communities Network Family and Consumer Sciences Extension-UGA Marietta Marietta Atlanta Roswell Atlanta Atlanta Athens Cobb County Cobb County Statewide Statewide Statewide Statewide Statewide Statewide Douglas County Rockdale County Alpharetta Atlanta Roswell Cobb County Fulton County Clayton County DeKalb County Statewide Clayton, Cobb, DeKalb, Fulton and Gwinnett counties and the cities of Acworth, Alpharetta, Atlanta, Austell, College Park, East Point, Fairburn, Hapeville, Kennesaw, Marietta, Palmetto, Powder Springs, Roswell, Smyrna and Union City Statewide Statewide Statewide Statewide National effort implemented in Atlanta National effort implemented in Atlanta Statewide WATER SUPPLY AND WATER CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT PLAN DATE: SEPTEMBER 2003 P:\2317-002\TASK 13\FINAL REPORT SEP. 2003\FINAL WORD\SECTION 16 WS- EDUCATION & PUBLIC AWARENESS.DOC 16-12 Section 16: Education and Public Awareness Program UGA River Basin Science and Policy Center Georgia Water & Pollution Control Association Trout Unlimited Let's Go Fishing Coordinating Organization Location Athens Statewide Target Region Marietta Statewide Duluth Decatur National effort implemented in Atlanta Worldwide Living Wise and Learning to Be Water Modesto, CA Wise American Water Works Association Denver, CO State of Georgia Water Conservation Savannah Coordinator EPA Water Efficiency Program Washington, D.C. Terrene Institute Alexandria, VA National Institutes for Water Resources NA National National Statewide National National National The Universities Water Information Network (UWIN) Water Environment Federation Carbondale, IL Alexandria, VA Izaak Walton League, Lake Lanier Chapter Izaak Walton League, Greater Atlanta Chapter Earth 911 Elachee Nature-Science Center Atlanta Atlanta Phoenix, AZ Gainesville, GA National National Lake Lanier Atlanta National effort implemented in Atlanta Statewide WATER SUPPLY AND WATER CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT PLAN DATE: SEPTEMBER 2003 P:\2317-002\TASK 13\FINAL REPORT SEP. 2003\FINAL WORD\SECTION 16 WS- EDUCATION & PUBLIC AWARENESS.DOC 16-13 Section 17 Implementation Actions The implementation actions for the Water Supply and Conservation Management Plan (WS Plan) are a blueprint for State, regional, and local officials and residents of the 16-county District to follow. Performing the actions will lead towards achieving the policy goals established for the WS Plan. Roles The WS Plan involves participation by citizens and many levels of government for implementation. The broad roles for these are summarized below: Local Jurisdictions Own and operate utilities that manage water supply systems and water conservation programs; Plan and construct water supply infrastructure for water supply (note: projects required pursuant to a federal or state court order will take precedence over the recommendations contained in this plan); Participate in the District; Implement programs to improve water system interconnections; and Lead and guide regional efforts for water resources management. Metropolitan North Georgia Water Planning District Promote inter-jurisdictional collaboration for water resources management; Serve as a forum and clearinghouse for regional issues, such as water conservation; Present a regional voice for water resources management; and Provide local jurisdictions with support and guidance for implementing the Plan. The EPD Issue water withdrawal permits in accordance with the Plan; Continue regulatory functions over water supply; and Support regional planning; WATER SUPPLY AND WATER CONSERVATION PLAN DATE: SEPTEMBER 2003 P:\2317-002\TASK 13\FINAL REPORT SEP. 2003\FINAL WORD\SECTION 17 WS - IMPLEMENTATION ACTIONS.DOC 17-1 Section 17: Implementation Actions Georgia Environmental Facilities Authority Support the WS Plan through increased funding participation. Action Items Tables 17-1 though 17-6 summarize the recommended tasks and present the measurable milestones for implementing the WS Plan. Tasks are identified for the near term (Years 1 to 5) and the long term (2009 to 2030). The long-term tasks are not necessarily specific to the year to be implemented, and these may be impacted by the mandatory updates to the WS Plan that will be undertaken every 5 years. TABLE 17-1 Implementation Tasks and Milestones for Water Conservation Program (Summary of Section 8 Action Items) Year 1-2004 Year 2-2005 Year 3-2006 Year 4-2007 Year 5-2008 2009-2030 Water Conservation Action No. 1: Establish conservation pricing by all District utilities Implement uniform rates Perform rate studies LOCAL UTILITIES Implement multitier rates Rate adjustments as needed Water Conservation Action No. 2: Enact legislation to require plumbing retrofits on home resales STATE Pass Legislation Monitor Compliance Check on compliance Water Conservation Action No. 3: Enact legislation to require low-flush urinals for new industrial, commercial and institutional buildings STATE Pass Legislation Monitor Compliance Check on compliance Water Conservation Action No. 4: Enact legislation to require rain sensor shut-off switches on new irrigation systems STATE Pass Legislation Monitor Compliance Check on compliance Water Conservation Action No. 5: Require sub-unit meters in new multi-family buildings Pass Local Ordinances LOCAL UTILITIES Monitor Compliance Water Conservation Action No. 6: Assess and reduce water system leakage Check on compliance Perform system water audit LOCAL UTILITIES Leak detection and repair ongoing WATER SUPPLY AND WATER CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT PLAN DATE: SEPTEMBER 2003 P:\2317-002\TASK 13\FINAL REPORT SEP. 2003\FINAL WORD\SECTION 17 WS - IMPLEMENTATION ACTIONS.DOC 17-2 Section 17: Implementation Actions TABLE 17-1 continued Year 1-2004 Year 2-2005 Year 3-2006 Year 4-2007 Year 5-2008 2009-2030 Water Conservation Action No. 7: Conduct residential water audits Implement program LOCAL UTILITIES Implement program as needed Water Conservation Action No. 8: Distribute low-flow retrofit kits to residential users LOCAL UTILITIES Design and implement program Water Conservation Action No. 9: Conduct commercial water audits LOCAL UTILITIES Design and implement program Water Conservation Action No. 10: Implement education and public awareness plan LOCAL UTILITIES Implement program Continue program Water Conservation Action No. 11: Establish review and oversight of water conservation implementation and performance DISTRICT Assist with legislation and program design Coordinate implementation as needed Monitor and report performance Monitor and report performance Revise program as needed WATER SUPPLY AND WATER CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT PLAN DATE: SEPTEMBER 2003 P:\2317-002\TASK 13\FINAL REPORT SEP. 2003\FINAL WORD\SECTION 17 WS - IMPLEMENTATION ACTIONS.DOC 17-3 Section 17: Implementation Actions TABLE 17-2 Implementation Tasks and Milestones for Water Supply Facilities (Summary of Section 9 Actions Items) Year 1-2004 Year 2-2005 Year 3-2006 Year 4-2007 Year 5-2008 2009-2030 Water Supply Action No. 1 Support reallocation of Lake Lanier and Lake Allatoona for water supply DISTRICT Support reallocation of storage. Lobby to approve reallocation. Coordinate local planning Incorporate reallocations into future Plan updates. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS Prepare reallocation reports Water Supply Action No. 2 Permitting and construction of at least five new reservoirs DISTRICT Promote District position with Army Corps of Engineers and State Lobby local legislators regarding District's needs LOCAL UTILITIES (Cobb County Marietta Water Authority, City of Canton, Hall, Fayette, Henry, and Walton Counties) Complete permitting process for all priority reservoir projects Engineer, construct, and operate Water Supply Action No. 3 Construct two new system connections and maintain one existing system connection to allow water resource sharing DISTRICT Overview projects Provide input on equitable rates LOCAL UTILITIES (Cobb County Marietta Water Authority, City of Atlanta, Fulton, Cherokee, Forsyth, and Coweta Counties) Develop framework for joint planning Prepare joint plans Develop projects and funding arrangements Negotiate service aggreements Engineer, construct, and operate Water Supply Action No. 4 Construct a new water treatment plant in Walton County Perform preplanning and purchase property for plant site. LOCAL UTILITIES (Walton County) Perform preliminary engineering and environmental studies. Perform design engineering and construction funding. Bid, construct, and operate new WTP. WATER SUPPLY AND WATER CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT PLAN DATE: SEPTEMBER 2003 P:\2317-002\TASK 13\FINAL REPORT SEP. 2003\FINAL WORD\SECTION 17 WS - IMPLEMENTATION ACTIONS.DOC 17-4 Section 17: Implementation Actions TABLE 17-2 continued Year 1-2004 Year 2-2005 Year 3-2006 Year 4-2007 Year 5-2008 2009-2030 Water Supply Action No. 5 Expand 25 existing, or soon to be complete, water treatment plants. LOCAL GOVERNMENTS Plan, engineer, finance, and construct improvements as needed to meet demands, according to the District Plan EPD Review and approve permit applications according to the District Plan Water Supply Action No. 6 Retire four existing water treatment plants LOCAL UTILITIES Decommission plants as existing investments are paid off, according to the District Plan Water Supply Action No. 7 Return reclaimed water to Lake Lanier by Forsyth, Gwinnett, and Hall Counties DISTRICT Educate public about indirect potable reuse, overview projects, and negotiate with Corps for a change in the storage pricing structure to provide a credit to permitted withdrawers for returning the reclaimed water to the Lake. LOCAL UTILITIES Develop projects WATER SUPPLY AND WATER CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT PLAN DATE: SEPTEMBER 2003 P:\2317-002\TASK 13\FINAL REPORT SEP. 2003\FINAL WORD\SECTION 17 WS - IMPLEMENTATION ACTIONS.DOC 17-5 Section 17: Implementation Actions TABLE 17-3 Implementation Tasks and Milestones for Water System Interconnections (Summary of Section 10 Action Items) Year 1-2004 Year 2-2005 Year 3-2006 Year 4-2007 Year 5-2008 Interconnections Action No. 1 - Set interconnection reliability targets. LOCAL JURISDICTIONS Establish local interconnection reliability target based District-wide recommendation Interconnections Action No. 2 - Establish sample water sharing agreements. DISTRICT Develop sample inter-jurisdictional water sharing agreements Interconnections Action No. 3 Develop or update local emergency water plans LOCAL JURISDICTIONS Develop detailed hydraulic studies Define capacity needs and pipe sizes, locations, routes, pumping and pressure reducing requirements Define steps required to modify system operations of both utilities Install required water system connections Secure funding for capital and non-capital improvements Enter water sharing agreements (emergency or routine) between utilities 2009-2030 Develop or update emergency plan for water sharing DISTRICT Assist local utilities to secure funding for capital and non-capital improvements STATE Assist local utilities to secure funding for capital and non-capital improvements TABLE 17-4 Implementation Tasks and Milestones for Local Water Management Planning (Summary of Section 11 Action Items) Year 1-2004 Year 2-2005 Year 3-2006 Year 4-2007 Year 5-2008 2009-2030 Local Planning Action No. 1 - Develop local water management plans LOCAL JURISDICTIONS Update water Prepare Water Management Plan management plan every five years Local Planning Action No. 2 - Review local plans for consistency with District Plans LOCAL JURISDICTIONS Review local master plans for consistency with District plans. DISTRICT Facilitate inter-jurisdictional cooperation, if needed. Report on annual progress of WS Plan. EPD may consult with the District to check local plans for compliance with the District Plans. Prepare update to Perform annual Perform annual Perform annual Perform annual Perform annual District Plans WS Plan review. WS Plan review. WS Plan review. WS Plan review. WS Plan review. (minimum every 5 years). WATER SUPPLY AND WATER CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT PLAN DATE: SEPTEMBER 2003 P:\2317-002\TASK 13\FINAL REPORT SEP. 2003\FINAL WORD\SECTION 17 WS - IMPLEMENTATION ACTIONS.DOC 17-6 Section 17: Implementation Actions TABLE 17-5 Implementation Tasks and Milestones for Legislative and Regulatory Recommendations (Summary of Section 13 Action Items) Year 1-2004 Year 2-2005 Year 3-2006 Year 4-2007 Year 5-2008 2009-2030 Permitting Action No. 1 Develop regional Section 404 Permit for the District ACOE - SHPO - USFWS - EPA - EPD Note: The implementation schedule for Permitting Action No. 1will be established in future plan updates. Permitting Action No. 2 Streamline water withdrawal and treatment permitting for District projects Consolidate water withdrawal and treatment/operation permit cycle Modify permit application guidelines to require consistency with WS Plan. Consolidate reporting Convene stakeholders to refine streamline processes and execute MOU Develop guidelines for local compliance EPD EPD may consult with the District to check local plans for compliance with the District Plans. Permitting Action No. 3 Allocate water withdrawals according to the WS Plan Confirm allocation based on WS Plan EPD Review local Water and Wastewater Management Plans for conformance with the WS Plan WATER SUPPLY AND WATER CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT PLAN DATE: SEPTEMBER 2003 P:\2317-002\TASK 13\FINAL REPORT SEP. 2003\FINAL WORD\SECTION 17 WS - IMPLEMENTATION ACTIONS.DOC 17-7 Section 17: Implementation Actions TABLE 17-6 Implementation Tasks and Milestones for Governance and Inter-jurisdictional Collaboration (Summary of Section 14 Action Items) Year 1-2004 Year 2-2005 Year 3-2006 Year 4-2007 Year 5-2008 2009-2030 Governance and Collaboration Action No.1 - Continue to use existing tools Governance and Collaboration Action No.2 - Develop and share model inter-jurisdictional agreements Develop model agreements. DISTRICT Governance and Collaboration Action No.3 Establish a fair share funding formula framework DISTRICT LOCAL JURISDICTIONS Develop framework. Undertake reviews per framework, when requested. Refine framework as needed. Governance and Collaboration Action No. 4 Clearly establish level of service expectations, commitments and appeals process DISTRICT Develop level of service benchmarks and appeals process. Employ as needed. Governance and Collaboration Action No. 5 Establish a formal system of dispute resolution DISTRICT Develop procedures for dispute resolution. Employ as needed. Governance and Collaboration Action No. 6 Actively explore the most appropriate role for the state to play in the district's long-term water resource issues DISTRICT Recruit task force from members to explore State role. Make recommendations to State agencies. STATE AGENCIES Enact new State role. Governance and Collaboration Action No. 7 Amend district WS Plan as necessary to allow innovation and flexibility DISTRICT Consider amendments proposed by local jurisdictions in light of competing needs and water resource constraints. Amend WS Plan where appropriate. Governance and Collaboration Action No. 8 Publicize and reward successful partnerships Publicize and reward successful partnerships. DISTRICT WATER SUPPLY AND WATER CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT PLAN DATE: SEPTEMBER 2003 P:\2317-002\TASK 13\FINAL REPORT SEP. 2003\FINAL WORD\SECTION 17 WS - IMPLEMENTATION ACTIONS.DOC 17-8 Section 17: Implementation Actions TABLE 17-7 Implementation Tasks and Milestones for Funding (Summary of Section 15 Action Items) Year 1-2004 Year 2-2005 Year 3-2006 Year 4-2007 Year 5-2008 2009-2030 Funding Action No. 1 - Fund Capital Improvements Primarily By Local Participants LOCAL JURISDICTIONS Continue use of local funding mechanisms. Modify GEFA funding capacity, criteria, etc. MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL GROUPS DISTRICT Use modified GEFA funding mechanisms. LOCAL JURISDICTIONS DISTRICT Research and request federal funds. Funding Action No. 2 - Increase Gap Financing Available Through GEFA Loan Funds GEFA Review rules and propose revisions to increase gap funding. Adopt revised rules to increase gap funding. Funding Action No. 3 - Increase Federal Funding Through A Unified Funding Appeal From The District For Federal Assistance Organize funding appeal. Align Georgia congressional delegation with funding appeal. DISTRICT . Submit funding appeal to Congress. Funding Action No. 4 - Fund District Activities Set priorities and establish a budget LOCAL JURISDICTIONS DISTRICT STATE LEGISLATURE Reassess budget and activities annually Funding Action No. 5 - Evaluate Opportunities For Public-Private Partnerships Evaluate applicability of public-private partnerships for upcoming projects. LOCAL JURISDICTIONS Use public-private partnerships as applicable. WATER SUPPLY AND WATER CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT PLAN DATE: SEPTEMBER 2003 P:\2317-002\TASK 13\FINAL REPORT SEP. 2003\FINAL WORD\SECTION 17 WS - IMPLEMENTATION ACTIONS.DOC 17-9 Section 17: Implementation Actions TABLE 17-8 Implementation Tasks and Milestones for Education and Public Awareness (Summary of Section 16 Elements) Year 1-2004 Year 2-2005 Year 3-2006 Year 4-2007 Year 5-2008 2009-2030 Education and Public Awareness Element No. 1 Public Awareness Campaign DISTRICT, BUSINESS SPONSORS, LOCAL GOVERNMENTS Mass Media Campaign DISTRICT, BUSINESS SPONSORS, LOCAL GOVERNMENTS, STATE AGENCIES Alternative Media Activities Continue activities as necessary Promotional Items Ongoing Education and Public Awareness Element No. 2 Outreach and Education to Key Target Groups DISTRICT, CWC, LOCAL GOVERNMENTS, AGENCY PARTNERS, STATE AGENCIES Identify Target Audiences Workshops, Briefings Information Clearinghouse Ongoing Education and Public Awareness Element No. 3 Primary and Secondary Education Develop Partnerships for Educational Opportunities Coordinate Use of Educational Materials DISTRICT Ongoing Implementation Costs Estimated costs for implementing the WS Plan over the next 30 years are presented in Table 17-9 and 17-10. These costs have been divided into two categories, as follows: Infrastructure-Related Costs Programmatic Costs The infrastructure-related cost estimates indicate the approximate magnitude of the investment that is required over the thirty-year planning period to provide water supply services to the District. These estimates include both capital and O&M costs. These are District-wide costs that the WS Plan was developed to address and, to the extent possible, minimize. Because infrastructure investments would be necessary under any future scenario, they should not be viewed as costs that result from the WS Plan. However, their magnitude, and the potential for reducing them through more coordinated effort among District members, is a main benefit of a WS Plan. WATER SUPPLY AND WATER CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT PLAN DATE: SEPTEMBER 2003 P:\2317-002\TASK 13\FINAL REPORT SEP. 2003\FINAL WORD\SECTION 17 WS - IMPLEMENTATION ACTIONS.DOC 17-10 Section 17: Implementation Actions Programmatic costs result from carrying out specific action items called for in the WS Plan that are not directly related to the construction or operation of infrastructure. These costs are generally orders-of-magnitude less than the infrastructure-related costs. They are, however, costs that result directly from carrying out WS Plan recommendations. In the case of each programmatic measure or action, the benefits should outweigh the costs. In the case of water conservation, a cost-benefit analysis has indicated that benefits outweigh costs by a ratio of 2.5 to 1. The benefits of the water conservation program were estimated in terms of reduced water treatment infrastructure costs to be approximately $500 million over the thirty-year planning period. Other programmatic measures have been proposed to help implement other WS Plan recommendations. The benefits of some of these measures are difficult to measure in monetary terms and, therefore, do not lend themselves to cost-benefit analyses. Infrastructure-Related Costs The estimated infrastructure costs for providing water service to the District for the thirty-year planning period are presented in Table 17-9 (note: projects required pursuant to a federal or state court order will take precedence over the recommendations contained in this plan). The distribution system estimates in Table 17-9 are based on an estimate that $2000 worth of water distribution system infrastructure is needed to serve each additional resident of the District. This figure, along with the projected population growth of the District, was used to estimate the capital cost of distribution system improvements. O&M costs were estimated as a percent of capital costs for distribution system infrastructure: 3.5% for distribution system piping and pumps. The latter cost includes electric power costs. Table 17-9 Estimated Water Infrastructure Costs Projected Costs by Time Period2,3 Item 2001 to 2010 2011 to 2020 2021 to 2030 Total for 30 ($ billion) ($ billion) ($billion) Years ($ billion) Infrastructure Reservoirs <$ 1 0 0 <$ 1 Treatment Facilities <$ 1 <$ 1 <$ 1 $ 2 Distribution System $ 2 $ 3 $ 3 $ 8 Treatment O&M $ 1 $ 1 $ 2 $ 4 Distribution System O&M Programmatic and Policy Measures1 $ 3 <$ 1 $ 4 <$ 1 $ 5 <$ 1 $ 12 <$ 1 Total $ 8 $ 9 $ 10 $ 27 1 Estimated set-up costs and annual costs are presented in Table 17-10. Total estimated set-up costs are $14.1 million. Total estimated annual costs are $7.2 million/year. 2 These costs are District-wide estimates derived from costs presented in Alternatives Analysis and Preliminary Management Strategies, February 13, 2003 and Recommended Solution Implementation Plan, March 10, 2003. Where costs will be shared by many local jurisdictions, jurisdiction-specific costs will vary depending on types of customers (i.e. residential, commercial, industrial), system size and age, and other factors. 3 All costs are estimated future amounts in 2003 dollars. WATER SUPPLY AND WATER CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT PLAN DATE: SEPTEMBER 2003 P:\2317-002\TASK 13\FINAL REPORT SEP. 2003\FINAL WORD\SECTION 17 WS - IMPLEMENTATION ACTIONS.DOC 17-11 Section 17: Implementation Actions As stated earlier, the costs presented in Table 17-9 show the rough magnitude of investment that District members will need to make in providing water service over the next thirty years, a period during which the District population is projected to double. Budgeting of local capital improvement plans will require more detailed cost estimates. These costs are a reason for coordinated planning among District members to ensure that their financial resources are well spent. The WS Plan was developed to minimize these costs. The water conservation program has been estimated to potentially save approximately $500 million from these costs over the 30year planning period. Programmatic Costs As discussed above, it is anticipated that implementation of the WS Plan will minimize overall infrastructure-related costs. However, these cost reductions require that several actions be taken by the State, the District, and District members in order to be realized. These actions, or "programmatic measures," have been described at various points throughout this document. An estimate of the costs associated with these programmatic measures is provided in Table 1710. Table 17-10 is organized to describe the costs of action items outlined in Sections 8 though 16 of this report. Forty-four action items have been discussed in this document. Table 17-10 lists these measures and identifies the entity primarily responsible for administering each measure. Costs are presented in Table 17-10 in terms of one-time set-up costs and annual administration costs. Costs and Savings Total costs for programmatic changes resulting from the WS Plan have been estimated at approximately $231 million over the 30-year period ($193 million for water conservation and $38 million for other programmatic measures). While this is a very rough approximation, it demonstrates that the economic benefits from the WS Plan, approximately $500 million from water conservation, far outweigh the costs of the Plan. WATER SUPPLY AND WATER CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT PLAN DATE: SEPTEMBER 2003 P:\2317-002\TASK 13\FINAL REPORT SEP. 2003\FINAL WORD\SECTION 17 WS - IMPLEMENTATION ACTIONS.DOC 17-12 Section 17: Implementation Actions Section 8 Water Conservation Program Table 17-10 Estimated Programmatic Costs to Implement WS Plan Section Action No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Description Conservation pricing2 Plumbing retrofits on resale3 Low-flush urinals3 Rain-sensors for irrigation3 Multi-family Sub-metering3 Reduction of system leakage4 Residential water audits5 Low-flow retrofit kits3 Commercial water audits3 Education and public awareness6 Review implementation Administering Entity Local Utilities Local Utilities Local Utilities Local Utilities Local Utilities Local Utilities Local Utilities Local Utilities Local Utilities Local Utilities District Section 9 Water Supply Facilities 1 Reallocation of Corps lakes District 2 Five new reservoirs District 3 System connections Local Utilities 4 Construct one new WTP Local Utilities 5 Expand 25 WTPs Local Utilities 6 Retire four existing WTPs Local Utilities 7 Return reclaimed water to Lake Lanier Local Utilities 1 Set interconnection reliability targets District 2 Establish sample water sharing agreements District 3 Develop or update local emergency water plans District Section 10 Water System Interconnections Estimated Programmatic Costs1 Set-up Annual $1,800,000 $500,000/yr $600,000 $250,000/yr $600,000 $250,000/yr $600,000 $250,000/yr $600,000 $250,000/yr $4,000,000 $1,000,000/yr $600,000 $250,000/yr $600,000 $500,000/yr $600,000 $300,000/yr $1,000,000 $2,500,000/yr Costs for these action items are included in the overall District cost to facilitate and support interjurisdictional agreements. See costs for Section 14 action items 2 thru 8. - $60,000/yr - $180,000/yr These action items involve primarily infrastructure costs that will not be increased by the WS Plan. The water conservation part of the WS Plan has been estimated to reduce infrastructure costs by $500 million over the planning period by reducing required system expansions. Costs for these action items are included in the overall District cost to facilitate and support interjurisdictional agreements. See costs for Section 14 action items 2 thru 8. 1 Develop local water management plans Local Utilities - $750,000/yr Section 11 Local Planning Recommendations 2 Review local plans when asked by EPD District Costs for these action items are included in the overall District cost to facilitate and support interjurisdictional agreements. See costs for Section 14 action items 2 thru 8. WATER SUPPLY AND WATER CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT PLAN DATE: SEPTEMBER 2003 P:\2317-002\TASK 13\FINAL REPORT SEP. 2003\FINAL WORD\SECTION 17 WS - IMPLEMENTATION ACTIONS.DOC 17-13 Section 17: Implementation Actions Section 13 Legislative and Regulatory Recommendations Action Section No. Description 1 Develop Regional 404 Permit 2 Streamline water withdrawal and treatment permitting Administering Estimated Programmatic Costs Entity Set-up Annual ACOE No increase in cost over current administrative costs is anticipated EPD $120,000 - 3 Set water withdrawals in EPD accordance with WS Plan Section 14 Governance and Interjurisdictional Collaboration 1 Continue to use existing tools Local Utilities No increase in cost over current administrative costs is anticipated 2 Develop model inter- District jurisdictional agreements $780,000 $180,000/yr 3 Establish fair share funding District formula 4 Establish service expectations District and appeals process 5 Establish formal system of District dispute resolution 6 Explore state role District 7 Amend WS Plan as necessary District 8 Publicize and reward successful partnerships District 1 Fund capital improvements Local Utilities No increase in cost over current administrative costs is anticipated 2 Increase gap financing through GEFA GEFA No increase in cost over current administrative costs is anticipated 3 Appeal for increased federal District funding 4 Fund the District District 5 Evaluate opportunities for District public-private partnerships 1 Public Awareness Campaign District 2 Outreach and education to District key target groups Costs for these action items are included in the overall District Cost to facilitate and support interjurisdictional agreements. See costs for Section 14 action items 2 thru 8. $2,200,0007 - (to be spent over 2003 to 2006 time period) 3 Primary and secondary education District Section 15 - Funding Section 16 Education and Public Awareness Total Estimated Costs for Recommended Actions Local Utilities (total for the District) District EPD TOTAL of Local, District, and State $11,000,000 $2,980,000 $120,000 $14,100,000 $6,800,000/yr $420,000/yr $0/yr $7,220,000/yr WATER SUPPLY AND WATER CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT PLAN DATE: SEPTEMBER 2003 P:\2317-002\TASK 13\FINAL REPORT SEP. 2003\FINAL WORD\SECTION 17 WS - IMPLEMENTATION ACTIONS.DOC 17-14 Section 17: Implementation Actions 1 These costs are District-wide estimates derived from costs presented in Alternatives Analysis and Preliminary Management Strategies, February 13, 2003 and Recommended Solution Implementation Plan, March 10, 2003. Where costs are to be spread over many local jurisdictions, jurisdiction-specific costs will vary depending on customer profile, system size and age, and other factors. 2 Costs for conservation pricing will vary depending on each jurisdiction's current pricing structure. 3 The annual cost for this measure will decrease over time. The annual cost presented is the estimated District-wide maximum over the 30-year planning period. 4 System leakage reduction costs will vary depending on the age and size of each utility's distribution system. 5 Residential water audits annual costs will occur after steep conservation pricing increases. 6 Education and Public Awareness costs are estimated based on water savings targets for the District. Section 16 of the WS Plan provides more information on the Education and Public Awareness for the District. 7 This cost is to fulfill the requirements of SB 130 for a District-wide education and public awareness campaign through 2006. Costs for additional public education by local jurisdictions to meet water savings targets are given for water conservation action No. 10. It is anticipated that these costs to local jurisdiction will be ongoing through the 30-year planning period. WATER SUPPLY AND WATER CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT PLAN DATE: SEPTEMBER 2003 P:\2317-002\TASK 13\FINAL REPORT SEP. 2003\FINAL WORD\SECTION 17 WS - IMPLEMENTATION ACTIONS.DOC 17-15 Section 18 Assessment of Progress One of the minimum plan elements stated in Senate Bill 130 is: "[E]stablishment of short-term and long-term goals to be accomplished by the plan and measures for the assessment of progress in accomplishing such goals and plan." While this document identified numerous strategies and actions for implementing the Water Supply and Water Conservation Management Plan (WS Plan), the District has determined realistic priorities set on balancing funding, practicality, cost-effectiveness, and staff availability. The District will be able to assess whether the WS Plan is accomplishing the intended goals by articulating key, measurable objectives for the WS Plan; by identifying corresponding performance measures; and by specifying schedules for what the District hopes to achieve. The performance measures also offer tools for the EPD to evaluate the District's progress towards achieving its goals and objectives. Lastly, in large efforts that involve many players, such as those outlined in the WS Plan, there can be a lack of accountability for outcomes. For example, implementation could be hampered by neighboring jurisdictions needing joint facilities at different times. This difference in needs may slow or halt progress on inter-jurisdictional agreements. The performance targets contained in this section will be a necessary tool for holding the District members accountable for implementing the WS Plan. Plan Reviews and Updates Annual review of the wastewater WS Plan is required, as stated in Senate Bill 130: "The District shall review ...management plan(s) and (their) implementation annually to determine whether there is a need to update such plan(s) and shall report to the director the progress of implementation of its goals..." It is also stated that: "...the District shall prepare updated ...management plan(s) no less frequently than every five years..." WATER SUPPLY AND WATER CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT PLAN DATE: SEPTEMBER 2003 P:\2317-002\TASK 13\FINAL REPORT SEP. 2003\FINAL WORD\SECTION 18 WS- ASSESSMENT OF PROGRESS.DOC 18-1 Section 18: Assessment of Progress The goal is to provide policymakers and the public with answers to questions such as: How is the District growing and changing over time? Are we building the projects, developing the services, and implementing the policies that we said we would? Ensuring Plan Relevancy All three of the District's long-term Plans (water, wastewater, and watershed), are designed to provide a big-picture context for specific decisions about local and state plans, policies, regulations, permits, investments, and operations. The District's enabling legislation anticipated the need to monitor conditions and the Plans' progress on an ongoing basis, and to make adjustments, as better information or new conditions arise. By design, the Plans are more detailed in their early years, and more general in their later years. This has been done in recognition of the limitations of current knowledge about future situations, and the inevitability of change. Recommendations for the first 5 years are reasonably firm, whereas those beyond year 20 are expected to be refined several times before they are implemented. Because of this, it is essential than an updated plan be prepared no less frequently than every 5 years in order to allow for appropriate adjustments. Setting Common Expectations Because District members have never had a big-picture plan against which their local plans were evaluated, there is an understandable level of concern about how District Plans will be used, and how they will be modified as the State, the District, and local entities gain experience in a new level of regional collaboration. The purpose of this section is to establish common expectations about annual District Plan reviews and 5-year Plan updates. Specifically, it addresses: What will be reviewed regularly to ensure that District Plans are relevant and useful; How to ensure local entities that their needs are being met; How special issues will be addressed; and What actions should trigger a Plan review and/or update. All stakeholders should know that if they may have a concern about a particular element of a Plan, the District would reconsider that issue. Similarly, they should have confidence that the Plans have been crafted to be adaptable, dynamic, and flexible. Future Planning Work As with any effort, the preparation of these Plans has been constrained by time and available resources. As a result, there are issues that, in this round of planning the District has addressed in general, and in less detail than its members would like. For this reason, the Plans contain recommendations for additional investigation over their life. For example, more detailed population forecasts, refinement of demand forecasts, connections between these Plans and land use decisions, and additional exploration of funding options, are topics the District should pursue the next 5 years. Undoubtedly, other issues will emerge that merit in-depth WATER SUPPLY AND WATER CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT PLAN DATE: SEPTEMBER 2003 P:\2317-002\TASK 13\FINAL REPORT SEP. 2003\FINAL WORD\SECTION 18 WS- ASSESSMENT OF PROGRESS.DOC 18-2 Section 18: Assessment of Progress consideration in the future. As with the initial efforts, future planning work should be open and inclusive, involving all District members and stakeholders. Reviewing District and Other Plans While Senate Bill 130 is specific in requiring the District to review plans annually and update them a minimum of every 5 years, there are additional items to which the District should monitor and respond. For example, the District will need to evaluate the evolution of the other plans and policies that influence implementation of District Plans. In the case of local, state and federal plans and policies, District reviews should consider the following questions: To what extent do these reflect District Plan elements? Do they simply acknowledge District Plan elements, or are they consistent with District Plans? If there are inconsistencies, are they isolated cases, or do they represent District-wide issues or trends? Do these identify data or issues that were not considered in District Plans, but should be considered in updates? If so, how substantive a difference is this likely to make District-wide? How urgent is the need to update District Plans to reflect these data or issues? Do these identify major new data collection needs? If the data were collected, how would they be analyzed and used? When, and by whom? Recommended Annual Reviews and Updates The Table 18-1 displays key items for the District to consider in its annual reviews and 5-year updates. It is essential that an updated plan be prepared no less frequently than every 5 years in order to allow for appropriate adjustments. Performance Measures While the District could choose to apply performance measurements to all the specific strategies and tasks identified in the previous section, the monitoring and reporting efforts would be exhaustive and could dilute resources needed for implementation. To that end, it is recommended that only the critical actions be monitored and reported to the District. Table 18-2 identifies and schedules critical actions, performance measures, and reports. Some actions and deadlines are mandated by Senate Bill 130, or are key to the WS Plan. Those are distinguished in Table 18-2 as follows: Bold = Actions and deadlines mandated by law Underline =Actions and deadlines that are critical to the WS Plan At a later date, the District may choose to monitor and require reporting on additional tasks that are also important, but not currently considered critical to implementation of the WS Plan. WATER SUPPLY AND WATER CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT PLAN DATE: SEPTEMBER 2003 P:\2317-002\TASK 13\FINAL REPORT SEP. 2003\FINAL WORD\SECTION 18 WS- ASSESSMENT OF PROGRESS.DOC 18-3 Section 18: Assessment of Progress TABLE 18-1 Summary of Plan Elements to Be Reviewed and Updated Regularly by the District Key to actions:z = Required ~ = Recommended | = Desirable = Automatic Plan Review Trigger Plan Elements Annual Update Five-Year Update Review Update Review Update District Plan Recommendations Non-Capital z | z ~ Capital (including phasing) Education & Public Awareness Programs Local Conservation Pricing Other Local Water Conservation Programs District Actions EPD Actions z ~ z ~ z z z ~ z ~ z z | z Related MNGWPD & State Plans (Long-Term Water/ | Wastewater/ Stormwater, etc) Local Septic System Programs | z ~ z z Local Sewer System Operation & Maintenance | Programs New Population and Demand Forecasts z Funding Trends z z z z z Special Triggers for Plan Reviews Note: Any of these actions should trigger an automatic review of their implications for District Plans, and needed Plan modifications. Additionally, the status of any of these pending actions should be monitored routinely. EPD guidance on ACF and ACT basins modified | z z EPD Permit Action on Water Withdrawal, Reservoir | z z or Discharge (Issued/Denied/Modified) Court Rulings on General Standards or Districtspecific cases (e.g. discharges to Lake Lanier) | z z New RDC or State Population Forecasts Adopted | z z Legislative Action on District Recommendations ~ z z Local Utility Master Plan Update Adopted | z z Major Policy Action by District Board | z z Action on Reallocation of Lakes Lanier & Allatoona | z z Action on Removal of Heat Load from Chattahoochee | z z River New Reservoir Permit Actions | z z Finalization of EPA CMOM Regulations ~ z z Change in DHR regulations on Septic Systems ~ z z Change in EPD Policies or Regulations ~ z z Change in GEFA or Federal Funding Levels or Policies | z z Topics to Address for Future Plans Refined Population Forecasts (and Forecast Methodology) z z Plan's Relationship to Land Use (and Transportation) Policies District and Facility Funding Options District Structure & Membership ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ WATER SUPPLY AND WATER CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT PLAN DATE: SEPTEMBER 2003 P:\2317-002\TASK 13\FINAL REPORT SEP. 2003\FINAL WORD\SECTION 18 WS- ASSESSMENT OF PROGRESS.DOC 18-4 Section 18: Assessment of Progress TABLE 18-2 Summary of Critical Performance Measures Action Performance Measures Type of Report Year(s) Reported Local Governments Development of local water supply plans consistent with WS Plan Development of local plan with required planning elements Complete/incomplete check list Year 2, and every 5 yrs thereafter Advance interconnection of water systems Establish system specific IRT Complete/incomplete Year 3 Conservation pricing implemented Complete/incomplete Year 1 Implementation of water conservation measures Perform rate study Complete/incomplete Year 2 Implement multi-rate conservation pricing Complete/incomplete Year 3 Reduce unaccounted for water Annual progress report Annual Estimated conservation savings Analysis report Annual Public education program Develop tools and distribute materials Annual progress report Year 1 Measure success Analysis report Year 2 State Implementation of water conservation measures Pass new required state legislation Complete/incomplete Year 1 Provide leadership for water conservation Upgrade state buildings with low flow toilets and urinal, where feasible Annual progress report Years 1-5 GEFA Modify GEFA funding capacity, criteria, etc. Status of GEFA modifications Annual progress report Year 1 Complete/incomplete Year 2 EPD Implementation of streamlined water withdrawal permitting Implement recommended elements Annual progress report Years 1, 2 Army Corps of Engineers Streamline Section 404 Permit Process Establish a new Regional Permit Complete/incomplete Year 5 District Support ACF-ACT negotiations/reauthorization of Monitor and provide input to negotiations Annual progress report Annual lakes Permitting and construction of at Promote District position with ACOE and least five new reservoirs State and lobby local legislators Annual progress report Annual Develop fair share funding formula Annual progress report Year 1 Support inter-jurisdictional framework Complete/incomplete Year 2 agreements Develop level of service, dispute resolution, Annual progress report Year 1 and appeals process Complete/incomplete Year 2 Pursue federal funds for Develop action plan for pursuing federal funds Complete/incomplete Year 2 interconnections Monitor action plan Annual progress report Annual, Year 1-5 Advance interconnection of water systems Establish District IRT guidelines Complete/incomplete Year 2 Bold = Actions and deadlines mandated by law; Underline =Actions and deadlines that are critical to the Plan WATER SUPPLY AND WATER CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT PLAN DATE: SEPTEMBER 2003 P:\2317-002\TASK 13\FINAL REPORT SEP. 2003\FINAL WORD\SECTION 18 WS- ASSESSMENT OF PROGRESS.DOC 18-5 Section 18: Assessment of Progress Type of Reports The reporting type depends on the task and performance measure being monitored. The following list identifies the various reporting types: Complete/incomplete: Responsible entity will state that the performance measure is complete or incomplete. Analysis Report: Responsible entity will submit a report summarizing analysis of performance measure to determine task progress. Annual Progress Report: Responsible entity will submit a report stating the actions, progress, and status of the performance measure. Responsibilities Implementation monitoring will provide information on the specific steps that the District, EPD, agencies, and local jurisdictions are taking to implement the WS Plan. Local governments and regional and state agencies all play important roles in implementing the WS Plan. Tracking implementation activities is a critical aspect of monitoring. Table 18-2 lists the responsible entity for each reporting action. Coordinating regional, county, and local monitoring efforts will minimize data collection and management, and avoid duplication of effort. Reports will be prepared annually by the District and will be submitted to the EPD to assess progress in achieving its targets. Conclusions While performance will be reported annually by the responsible entities, the final measure of implementation success will be the demonstrable trends of: Development of local water supply plans that are certified by the District to be consistent with the WS Plan; Reallocation of Lakes Lanier and Allatoona, and permitting of new reservoirs currently in the permitting process; Reduced water use by customer class on a gallon-per-account, per day, basis through an effective water conservation program; Planned indirect potable reuse of reclaimed water; Heightened public awareness and community support through an effective public education and awareness program; Availability of adequate funding of infrastructure intended to meet the growth needs of metropolitan North Georgia; Development and use of streamlined permitting process; and Progress on improving surface water quality. WATER SUPPLY AND WATER CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT PLAN- DRAFT DATE: SEPTEMBER 2003 P:\2317-002\TASK 13\FINAL REPORT SEP. 2003\FINAL WORD\SECTION 18 WS- ASSESSMENT OF PROGRESS.DOC 18-6 Appendix A Index Index to Locations in the Report Addressing Requirements for the Water Supply and Water Conservation Management Plan Requirement for Water Supply and Conservation Management Plan Location in Report Requirements in Senate Bill 130 Section 3 Existing Water Supply and Treatment 12-5-584 (a) (1) Description of current water supply resources within the Conditions District and potential limitations on such resources Section 6 Water Resources Issues and Potential Source Evaluation 12-5-584 (a) (2) Projected water supply requirements for the District Section 4 Water Demand Projections 12-5-584 (a) (3) Identification of opportunities to expand water resources within the District Section 6 Water Resources Issues and Potential Source Evaluation Section 2 Plan Overview 12-5-584 (a) (4) An accounting of existing interbasin transfers within the District Section 3 Existing Water Supply and Treatment Conditions 12-5-584 (a) (5) A water conservation program including voluntary measures, best management practices, and measures enforceable through local ordinances Section 8 Water Conservation Program 12-5-584 (a) (6) Education and public awareness measures regarding water Section 16 Education and conservation Public Awareness 12-5-584 (a) (7) Establishment of short-term and long-term goals to be accomplished by the plan and measures for the assessment of progress in accomplishing such goals and plan Sections 17 Implementation Actions Section 18 Measures for Assessment of Progress Requirements in EPD's Water Planning Standards for Water Supply and Conservation Plan 1. The plan shall include items 1-7 in OCGA 12-5-584. 2. The plan shall, at a minimum, be consistent with all applicable federal and state laws and rules. 3. The plan shall be consistent with agreements in the ACF/ACT compacts. See above Section 2 Plan Overview Section 6 Water Resources Issues and Potential Source Evaluation WATER SUPPLY AND WATER CONSERVATION PLAN A-1 DATE: SEPTEMBER 2003 P:\2317-002\TASK 13\FINAL REPORT SEP. 2003\FINAL WORD\APPENDIX A WS- INDEX.DOC Appendix A - lndex Requirement for Water Supply and Conservation Management Plan Location in Report 4. The plan shall propose allocations of the waters of the Chattahoochee River, Lake Lanier, Allatoona (and other lakes if appropriate) to water systems consistent with guidance to be provided by EPD 5. The plan shall not prevent the appropriate and reasonable downstream water needs from being met, even during droughts. These needs include instream flow protection and water withdrawals both inside and downstream from the District. 6. The plan shall optimize inter-jurisdictional water connections for efficiency and reliability. 7. The plan shall include a stakeholder process to (1) identify effective water conservation measures including water conservation pricing and low-flow toilet retrofit programs; (2) develop reasonable schedules for the implementation of each measure; (3) define a mechanism for determining resultant reduction sin water use. All of these steps shall be included in the water conservation plan. The initiative formalized in the Memorandum of Understanding that created the California Urban Water Conservation Council is a good example of a stakeholder process. 8. The plan shall provide that all local governments have water conservation pricing by January 1, 2004. The plan shall identify the details and extent of such pricing. 9. The plan shall be consistent with the wastewater management plan and the watershed management plan. 10. The plan shall identify various water supply alternatives. The plan shall determine the cost for the entire District of each alternative and the environmental/water supply benefits/amounts of each alternative. 11. The plan shall develop options to minimize future interbasin transfers. 12. The plan shall identify the projected water consumption from each basin and analyze the impacts of this consumption. Section 2 Plan Overview Appendix B County Level Summaries WW Plan Section 7 Wastewater Facilities WS Plan Section 6 - Water Resources Issues and Potential Source Evaluation Section 10 Water System Interconnections Section 11 - Local Planning Recommendations Section 8 Water Conservation Program Section 8 Water Conservation Program Section 1 - Introduction Section 7 Alternative Development and Evaluation Criteria Section 7 Alternative Development and Evaluation Criteria Section 9 Water Supply Facilities Section 4 Water Demand Projections WATER SUPPLY AND WATER CONSERVATION PLAN A-2 DATE: SEPTEMBER 2003 P:\2317-002\TASK 13\FINAL REPORT SEP. 2003\FINAL WORD\APPENDIX A WS- INDEX.DOC Appendix B County Level Summaries Water Supply Implementation Plan District-Wide Actions for All Jurisdictions All jurisdictions in the 16-county District will have a direct hand in the implementation and success of the Water Supply and Water Conservation Management and Long-term Wastewater Management Plans. Some actions are common to all jurisdictions. These actions are just as critical as the actions unique to each jurisdiction that are listed on the following pages. The following actions are recommended for all jurisdictions. The District will evaluate local consistency with these District-wide recommendations, as will the EPD in permit reviews. Develop and update local water management plans to be consistent with WS Plan. Support State legislation on water conservation as described under "Water Conservation" in Section 8. Establish water conservation pricing by January 2004, per Senate Bill 130; see "Water Conservation" in Section 8. Adopt and implement water conservation program as outlined under "Water Conservation" in Section 8. Adopt water system interconnection policy and define interconnection needs as outlined under "System Interconnections" in Section 10, and detailed further in the Technical Memorandum for Task 9 Interjurisdictional Water Connections for Efficiency and Reliability. Conduct environmental justice analyses as appropriate, as part of local water management plans. Advance public education and awareness as outlined under "Public Education and Involvement" in Section 16. Advocate the District's needs for reallocation of Lake Lanier and Lake Allatoona. Track customer demands and adjust water treatment plant expansion plans accordingly. Support the District in preparation of annual reports to EPD. County-by-County Lists of Specific Implementation Actions The remainder of Appendix B details the capital projects specific to each county, as well as the non-capital programs beyond those listed above, that are most pertinent to each county. WATER SUPPLY AND WATER CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT PLAN DATE: SEPTEMBER 2003 P:\2317-002\Task 13\Final Report Sep. 2003\Final Word\Appendix B WS- County by County Water Plan.doc B-1 Appendix B: Water Supply Implementation Plan Bartow County Water Supply Implementation Plan - MNGWPD Summary of Needs Water Demands & Capacities Bartow County Total Projected Demand 2005 Capacity Retained New Capacity for 2030 Total Planned 2030 Capacity 2030 Projected Demand (AADD MGD) 43 43 20 23 43 2030 Projected Demand (PDD MGD) 69 69 32 37 69 Capital Projects In the recommended plan the Adairsville WTP is retained and expanded as necessary to serve its current service area. A local plan should be developed jointly by Bartow County and the City of Cartersville to decide between: Option 1 - Expand Cartersville WTP from 27 MGD to 64 MGD to serve the whole area outside of Adairsville. Option 2 - Build a new WTP to withdraw from Lake Allatoona, to be expanded together with the Cartersville WTP to meet the growth in demand. Bartow County and Cartersville should work out a costeffective apportionment of capacity between the two facilities. The tables on the following page present phasing plans for capital improvements in Bartow County under the two expansion options. Non-Capital Programs The following non-capital programs are specific to Bartow County. These programs are in addition to those that apply to all counties within the District, as summarized on the first page of Appendix B. Maintain existing interconnections and water supply agreements with Cobb, Cherokee, and Polk Counties. Carry out joint planning studies between Bartow County and the City of Cartersville. WATER SUPPLY AND WATER CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT PLAN DATE: SEPTEMBER 2003 P:\2317-002\Task 13\Final Report Sep. 2003\Final Word\Appendix B WS- County by County Water Plan.doc B-2 Appendix B: Water Supply Implementation Plan Bartow County Water Supply Implementation Plan MNGWPD Option 1 Phasing Plan By 2005 2006 to 2010 2011 to 2020 2021 to 2030 Facilities Adairsville WTP Cartersville WTP Demand Projections & Total Capacity (MGD-PDD) Proposed Projects Plant Capacity at Project Type Project End of Capacity Period (MGD-PDD) (MGD-PDD) No expansions proposed 5 No expansions proposed 27 32 Proposed Projects Plant Capacity at Project Type Project End of Capacity Period (MGD-PDD) (MGD-PDD) Proposed Projects Plant Capacity at Project Type Project End of Capacity Period (MGD-PDD) (MGD-PDD) Proposed Projects Plant Capacity at Project Type Project End of Capacity Period (MGD-PDD) (MGD-PDD) No expansions proposed 5 Expand as necessary to meet Adairsville Demands at least 5 Expand as necessary to meet Adairsville Demands at least 5 No expansions proposed 27 Expansion 18 45 Expansion 19 64 37 in Bartow - 5 from Cobb 32 50 in Bartow 50 69 in Bartow 69 32 Total Option 2 Phasing Plan By 2005 2006 to 2010 2011 to 2020 2021 to 2030 Facilities Adairsville WTP Proposed Projects Plant Capacity at Project Type Project End of Capacity Period (MGD-PDD) (MGD-PDD) Proposed Projects Plant Capacity at Project Type Project End of Capacity Period (MGD-PDD) (MGD-PDD) Proposed Projects Plant Capacity at Project Type Project End of Capacity Period (MGD-PDD) (MGD-PDD) Proposed Projects Plant Capacity at Project Type Project End of Capacity Period (MGD-PDD) (MGD-PDD) No expansions proposed 5 No expansions proposed 5 Expand as necessary to meet Adairsville Demands at least 5 Expand as necessary to meet Adairsville Demands at least 5 Cartersville WTP No expansions proposed 27 No expansions proposed 27 No expansions proposed 27 Expansion Bartow Lake Allatoona WTP New Facility not Constructed by 2005 New facility not constructed by 2010 Initial Construction 18 19 total 641 18 Expansion Demand Projections & Total Capacity (MGD-PDD) 37 in Bartow 32 - 5 from Cobb 32 50 in Bartow 50 69 in Bartow 69 32 Total Notes: (1) Where proposed capacity is allotted to more than one facility, it is to be shared between them, as determined by joint local water supply planning. (2) Expansion is intended to be in operation before the end of the period shown. Exact timing to be determined in local water and wastewater management planning. Planning, design, and construction may begin in the previous period. WATER SUPPLY AND WATER CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT PLAN DATE: SEPTEMBER 2003 P:\2317-002\TASK 13\FINAL REPORT SEP. 2003\FINAL WORD\APPENDIX B WS- COUNTY BY COUNTY WATER PLAN.DOC B-3 Appendix B: Water Supply Implementation Plan Cherokee County Water Supply Implementation Plan - MNGWPD Summary of Needs Water Demands & Capacities 2030 Projected Demand (AADD MGD)1 2030 Projected Demand (PDD MGD)1 Cherokee County 40 64 Total Projected Demand 40 64 2005 Capacity Retained 17 27 New Capacity for 2030 23 37 Total Planned 2030 Capacity 40 64 (1) (+) Indicates supply to another county; (-) indicates demand filled by transfer from another county. Capital Projects Canton (in conjunction with the Cobb-Marietta Water Authority) should proceed with its plan to construct the Hickory Log Creek Reservoir and a new WTP to replace its existing one. This WTP should be expanded at least to a size that can fully utilize Canton's 25% (11 MGD) allocation from Hickory Log Creek Reservoir. Cherokee County should expand its Etowah River WTP from 27 to 46 MGD. Cherokee County has plans to sell water to Pickens, Dawson, and Bartow Counties. These plans are not precluded by the District Plan. Pickens and Dawson Counties have allocated amounts of Etowah/Lake Allatoona water that were not included as available supplies for the District cited in this report. Therefore, if these counties are served from Cherokee (up to approximately 20 MGD), it does not reduce water supplies from the Etowah basin available to the District. A joint plan to cost-effectively serve part of Bartow County from Cherokee County would be an acceptable addition to the Plan. The capital improvements are summarized in the attached phasing plan for Cherokee County. Non-Capital Programs The following non-capital programs are specific to Cherokee County. These programs are in addition to those that apply to all counties within the District, as indicated on the first page of Appendix B. Promote development of Hickory Log Creek Reservoir. Finalize agreement with CCMWA and the City of Canton for allocation of storage and cost sharing of Hickory Log Creek Reservoir. Maintain existing interconnections and water supply agreements with Pickens, Forsyth, Cobb, and Bartow Counties. WATER SUPPLY AND WATER CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT PLAN DATE: SEPTEMBER 2003 P:\2317-002\Task 13\Final Report Sep. 2003\Final Word\Appendix B WS- County by County Water Plan.doc B-4 Appendix B: Water Supply Implementation Plan Cherokee County Water Supply Implementation Plan MNGWPD Phasing Plan Facilities Cherokee Etowah River WTP By 2005 2006 to 2010 2011 to 2020 2021 to 2030 Proposed Projects Plant Capacity at Project End of Project Type Capacity Period (MGD-PDD) (MGD-PDD) Proposed Projects Project Project Type Capacity (MGD-PDD) Plant Capacity at End of Period (MGD-PDD) Proposed Projects Plant Proposed Projects Plant Capacity at Capacity at Project End of Project End of Project Type Capacity Period Project Type Capacity Period (MGD-PDD) (MGD-PDD) (MGD-PDD) (MGD-PDD) Expansion 9 27 No expansions proposed 27 Expansion 6 33 Expansion 13 46 Canton WTP No expansions proposed 5 Expansion Up to 13 18 No expansions proposed 18 No expansions proposed 18 Hickory Log Creek Reservoir (joint project of Canton and CCMWA) New Facility not Constructed by 2005 Initial Construction 45 MGDAADD Yield NA No expansions proposed NA No expansions proposed NA Demand Projections & Total Capacity (MGD-PDD) 32 40 in Cherokee 45 51 in Cherokee 51 64 in Cherokee 64 Notes: (1) Expansion is intended to be in operation before the end of the period shown. Exact timing to be determined in local water and wastewater management planning. Planning, design, and construction may begin in the previous period. WATER SUPPLY AND WATER CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT PLAN DATE: SEPTEMBER 2003 P:\2317-002\TASK 13\FINAL REPORT SEP. 2003\FINAL WORD\APPENDIX B WS- COUNTY BY COUNTY WATER PLAN.DOC B-5 Appendix B: Water Supply Implementation Plan Clayton County Water Supply Implementation Plan - MNGWPD Summary of Needs Water Demands & Capacities Clayton County Total Projected Demand 2005 Capacity Retained New Capacity for 2030 Total Planned 2030 Capacity 2030 Projected Demand (AADD MGD) 42 42 26 16 42 2030 Projected Demand (PDD MGD) 67 67 42 25 67 Capital Projects Projections indicate that water sources should be adequate through 2030. Clayton County should expand its three WTPs according to a local plan. Infrastructure should be kept in place to allow transfers from the City of Atlanta to fill peak demands on an emergency basis. The table on the following page summarizes the phasing plan for capital improvements in Clayton County. Non-Capital Programs The following non-capital programs are specific to Clayton County. These programs are in addition to those that apply to all counties within the District, as indicated on the first page of Appendix B. Promote development of Lake McIntosh and Tussahaw Reservoirs (new sources for neighboring counties). Maintain existing interconnections and water supply agreements with Fayette, Henry, and DeKalb Counties, and the City of Atlanta. WATER SUPPLY AND WATER CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT PLAN DATE: SEPTEMBER 2003 P:\2317-002\Task 13\Final Report Sep. 2003\Final Word\Appendix B WS- County by County Water Plan.doc B-6 Appendix B: Water Supply Implementation Plan Clayton County Water Supply Implementation Plan - MNGWPD Phasing Plan Facilities Clayton JW Smith WTP By 2005 2006 to 2010 2011 to 2020 2021 to 2030 Proposed Projects Plant Proposed Projects Plant Proposed Projects Plant Proposed Projects Plant Capacity at Capacity at Capacity at Capacity at Project End of Project End of Project End of Project End of Project Type Capacity Period Project Type Capacity Period Project Type Capacity Period Project Type Capacity Period (MGD-PDD) (MGD-PDD) (MGD-PDD) (MGD-PDD) (MGD-PDD) (MGD-PDD) (MGD-PDD) (MGD-PDD) No expansions proposed 12 Clayton WJ Hooper WTP No expansions proposed 20 Expansion of one facility 11 531 Expansion of one facility 8 611 Expansion of one facility 6 671 Clayton Freeman Road WTP No expansions proposed 10 Demand Projections & Total Capacity (MGD-PDD) 60 in Clayton 42 - 7 from Fulton 53 61 in Clayton 61 67 in Clayton 67 53 Total Notes: (1) Where proposed capacity is allotted to more than one facility, it is to be shared between them, as determined by joint local water supply planning. (2) Expansion is intended to be in operation before the end of the period shown. Exact timing to be determined in local water and wastewater management planning. Planning, design, and construction may begin in the previous period. WATER SUPPLY AND WATER CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT PLAN DATE: SEPTEMBER 2003 P:\2317-002\TASK 13\FINAL REPORT SEP. 2003\FINAL WORD\APPENDIX B WS- COUNTY BY COUNTY WATER PLAN.DOC B-7 Appendix B: Water Supply Implementation Plan Cobb County Water Supply Implementation Plan - MNGWPD Summary of Needs Water Demands & Capacities 2030 Projected Demand (AADD MGD)1 2030 Projected Demand (PDD MGD)1 Cobb County 113 181 To Fulton County +33 +53 To Paulding County +27 +43 To Douglas +1 +1 Total Projected Demand 174 278 2005 Capacity Retained 99 159 New Capacity for 2030 75 119 Total Planned 2030 Capacity 174 278 (1) (+) Indicates supply to another county; (-) indicates demand filled by transfer to another county. Capital Projects Cobb County-Marietta Water Authority (CCMWA), in conjunction with the City of Canton, should proceed with its plan to construct the Hickory Log Creek Reservoir and utilize it, as is planned, to augment the storage of Lake Allatoona. This will allow the Wyckoff WTP to withdraw more from Lake Allatoona. It is recommended that the CCMWA Wyckoff WTP be expanded significantly over the next thirty years. It is also recommended that the CCMWA Quarles WTP not be expanded beyond its currently planned expansion to 87 MGD. As outlined above, it is also recommended that the CCMWA continue to serve all of Paulding County and that an approximate 33 MGD AADD transfer to Fulton County be in place by 2030. It is anticipated in the case of both Paulding and Fulton County that water would be provided on a wholesale basis. The capital improvements are summarized in the attached phasing plan for Cobb County. Non-Capital Programs The following non-capital programs are specific to Cobb County. These programs are in addition to those that apply to all counties within the District, as indicated on the first page of Appendix B. Promote development of Hickory Log Creek Reservoir. Finalize agreement with Cherokee County and the City of Canton for allocation of storage and cost sharing of Hickory Log Creek Reservoir. Maintain interconnections and water supply agreements with Bartow, Cherokee, Douglas, Paulding, and Fulton Counties. Evaluate required improvements to accommodate routine sale of 1 MGD AADD/1 MGD PDD to Douglas County, 27 MGD AADD/43 MGD PDD to Paulding County, and 33 MGD AADD/53 MGD PDD to Fulton County, based on the Demand Centers outlined in the recommended solution. Determine required modifications to achieve water quality compatibility with wholesale customers. WATER SUPPLY AND WATER CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT PLAN DATE: SEPTEMBER 2003 P:\2317-002\Task 13\Final Report Sep. 2003\Final Word\Appendix B WS- County by County Water Plan.doc B-8 Appendix B: Water Supply Implementation Plan Cobb County Water Supply Implementation Plan - MNGWPD Phasing Plan Facilities By 2005 2006 to 2010 2011 to 2020 2021 to 2030 Proposed Projects Plant Proposed Projects Plant Proposed Projects Plant Proposed Projects Plant Capacity at Capacity at Capacity at Capacity at Project End of Project End of Project End of Project End of Project Type Capacity Period Project Type Capacity Period Project Type Capacity Period Project Type Capacity Period (MGD-PDD) (MGD-PDD) (MGD-PDD) (MGD-PDD) (MGD-PDD) (MGD-PDD) (MGD-PDD) (MGD-PDD) CCMWA Wyckoff WTP No expansions proposed 72 Expansion 45 117 Expansion 37 154 Expansion 37 191 CCMWA Quarles WTP Expansion 23 87 No expansions proposed 87 No expansions proposed 87 No expansions proposed 87 Hickory Log Creek Reservoir (joint project of CCMWA and City of Canton) New Facility not Constructed by 2005 Initial Construction 45 MGDAADD Yield NA No expansions proposed NA No expansions proposed NA Distribution System Connection to serve Fulton County 2 New Transmission Pipe not Constructed by New Transmission Pipe not Constructed by 2005 2010 Initial Construction See Fulton County Phasing Plan for details Distribution System Connection to continue service to Paulding Distribution System should be expanded and upgraded throughout the thirty-year planning period to continue service to Paulding County from Cobb County County Demand Projections & Total Capacity (MGD-PDD) 159 150 in Cobb 5 in Bartow 26 in Paulding 181 Total 204 160 in Cobb 14 in Fulton 30 in Paulding 204 Total 241 181 in Cobb 1 in Douglas 53 in Fulton 43 in Paulding 278 Total 278 Notes: (1) Expansion is intended to be in operation before the end of the period shown. Exact timing to be determined in local water and wastewater management planning. Planning, design, and construction may begin in the previous period. (2) Project will be based on a joint plan developed by the Cobb-Marietta Water Authority and Fulton County. WATER SUPPLY AND WATER CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT PLAN DATE: SEPTEMBER 2003 P:\2317-002\TASK 13\FINAL REPORT SEP. 2003\FINAL WORD\APPENDIX B WS- COUNTY BY COUNTY WATER PLAN.DOC B-9 Appendix B: Water Supply Implementation Plan Coweta County Water Supply Implementation Plan - MNGWPD Summary of Needs Water Demands & Capacities 2030 Projected Demand (AADD MGD)1 2030 Projected Demand (PDD MGD)1 Coweta County 29 46 From City of Atlanta -9 -15 From City of Griffin -3 -4 Total Projected Demand 17 27 2005 Capacity Retained 12 19 New Capacity for 2030 5 8 Total Planned 2030 Capacity 17 27 (1) (+) Indicates supply to another county; (-) indicates demand filled by transfer from another county. Capital Projects The BT Brown WTP should be expanded to 10 MGD to fully utilize the yield of the Cedar Creek Reservoir. The Newnan WTP should be expanded to 17 MGD. This capacity will fully utilize the current WTP site and approaches the yield of the existing water sources for the WTP. To fill demands that the BT Brown WTP and the Newnan WTP cannot meet, a local plan should be developed by Coweta County to decide among: Option 1 - Transfers (wholesale purchases) from the City of Atlanta and City of Griffin. (Recommended transfers outlined above are based on this option). Backup Options (to be used alone or in combination with Option 1): Build a new WTP to withdraw from the Chattahoochee River with advanced treatment technologies to remove trace pollutants from upstream discharges and runoff, or Build a new WTP to withdraw from West Point Lake. The capital improvements under Option 1 are summarized in the attached phasing plan for Coweta County. Non-Capital Programs The following non-capital programs are specific to Coweta County. These programs are in addition to those that apply to all counties within the District, as indicated on the first page of Appendix B. Promote development of Still Branch Reservoir in Pike County (new source for City of Griffin). Maintain interconnections and water supply agreements with the City of Atlanta. Develop interconnections and maintain water supply agreements with the City of Griffin. Evaluate required improvements to accommodate routine purchase of 9 MGD AADD/15 MGD PDD from City of Atlanta and 3 MGD AADD/4 MGD PDD from City of Griffin, based on the Demand Centers outlined in the recommended solution. Use the 1998 through 2002 drought of record to perform yield analysis for the Cedar Creek Reservoir, Sandy Brown Creek, White Oak Creek, and Line Creek. WATER SUPPLY AND WATER CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT PLAN DATE: SEPTEMBER 2003 P:\2317-002\TASK 13\FINAL REPORT SEP. 2003\FINAL WORD\APPENDIX B WS- COUNTY BY COUNTY WATER PLAN.DOC B-10 Appendix B: Water Supply Implementation Plan Coweta County Water Supply Implementation Plan - MNGWPD Option 1 Phasing Plan Facilities Coweta BT Brown WTP By 2005 2006 to 2010 2011 to 2020 2021 to 2030 Proposed Projects Plant Capacity at Proposed Projects Plant Capacity at Project End of Project End of Project Type Capacity Period Project Type Capacity Period (MGD-PDD) (MGD-PDD) (MGD-PDD) (MGD-PDD) Proposed Projects Plant Capacity at Proposed Projects Plant Capacity at Project End of Project End of Project Type Capacity Period Project Type Capacity Period (MGD-PDD) (MGD-PDD) (MGD-PDD) (MGD-PDD) Initial Construction 7 7 No expansions proposed 7 Expansion 3 10 No expansions proposed 10 Newnan WTP No expansions proposed 12 Expansion 5 17 No expansions proposed 17 No expansions proposed 17 Senoia WTP No expansions proposed 0.3 No expansions proposed 0.3 Decommission -0.3 0 Decommissioned 0 Distribution System Connection with City of Atlanta 2 New transmission pipe not constructed by Initial 2005 Construction 15 MGDPDD NA No expansions proposed NA No expansions proposed NA Distribution System Connection with City of Griffin 3 New transmission pipe not constructed by 2005 Initial Construction 4 MGD-PDD NA No expansions proposed NA No expansions proposed NA Demand Projections & Total Capacity (MGD-PDD) -1 from Griffin 19.3 28 in Coweta - 3 from 24.3 Atlanta 24 Total 35 in Coweta - 2 from Griffin - 6 from Atlanta 27 Total 46 in Coweta 27 - 4 from Griffin - 15 from Atlanta 27 27 Total Notes: (1) Expansion is intended to be in operation before the end of the period shown. Exact timing to be determined in local water and wastewater management planning. Planning, design, and construction may begin in the previous period. (2) Project will be based on a joint plan developed by Coweta County and City of Atlanta. (3) Project will be based on a joint plan developed by Coweta County and City of Griffin. WATER SUPPLY AND WATER CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT PLAN DATE: SEPTEMBER 2003 P:\2317-002\Task 13\Final Report Sep. 2003\Final Word\Appendix B WS- County by County Water Plan.doc B-11 Appendix B: Water Supply Implementation Plan DeKalb County Water Supply Implementation Plan - MNGWPD Summary of Needs Water Demands & Capacities DeKalb County Total Projected Demand 2005 Capacity Retained New Capacity for 2030 Total Planned 2030 Capacity 2030 Projected Demand (AADD MGD) 128 128 94 34 128 2030 Projected Demand (PDD MGD) 205 205 150 55 205 Capital Projects Expand Scott Candler WTP to meet future demands. The table on the following page summarizes the phasing plan for capital improvements recommended in DeKalb County. Non-Capital Programs The following non-capital programs are specific to DeKalb County. These programs are in addition to those that apply to all counties within the District, as indicated on the first page of Appendix B. Maintain interconnections and water supply agreements with Gwinnett, Rockdale, Henry, and Clayton Counties, and the City of Atlanta. WATER SUPPLY AND WATER CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT PLAN DATE: SEPTEMBER 2003 P:\2317-002\TASK 13\FINAL REPORT SEP. 2003\FINAL WORD\APPENDIX B WS- COUNTY BY COUNTY WATER PLAN.DOC B-12 Appendix B: Water Supply Implementation Plan DeKalb County Water Supply Implementation Plan MNGWPD Phasing Plan By 2005 2006 to 2010 2011 to 2020 2021 to 2030 Facilities Proposed Projects Plant Capacity at Proposed Projects Plant Capacity at Proposed Projects Plant Proposed Capacity at Projects Plant Capacity at Project End of Project End of Project End of Project End of Project Type Capacity Period Project Type Capacity Period Project Type Capacity Period Project Type Capacity Period (MGD-PDD) (MGD-PDD) (MGD-PDD) (MGD-PDD) (MGD-PDD) (MGD-PDD) (MGD-PDD) (MGD-PDD) DeKalb Scott Candler WTP Expansion 22 150 Expansion (if necessary) 37 187 Expansion 12 199 Expansion 6 205 Demand Projections & Total Capacity (MGD-PDD) 150 181 in DeKalb 187 193 in DeKalb 199 205 in DeKalb 205 Notes: (1) Expansion is intended to be in operation before the end of the period shown. Exact timing to be determined in local water and wastewater management planning. Planning, design, and construction may begin in the previous period. WATER SUPPLY AND WATER CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT PLAN DATE: SEPTEMBER 2003 P:\2317-002\TASK 13\FINAL REPORT SEP. 2003\FINAL WORD\APPENDIX B WS- COUNTY BY COUNTY WATER PLAN.DOC B-13 Appendix B: Water Supply Implementation Plan Douglas County Water Supply Implementation Plan - MNGWPD Summary of Needs Water Demands & Capacities 2030 Projected Demand (AADD MGD)1 2030 Projected Demand (PDD MGD)1 Douglas County 24 38 From Cobb County -1 -1 Total Projected Demand 23 37 2005 Capacity Retained 10 16 New Capacity for 2030 13 21 Total Planned 2030 Capacity 23 37 (1) (+) Indicates supply to another county; (-) indicates demand filled by transfer from another county. Capital Projects The DDCWSA should proceed with plans to raise the dam at its Dog River Reservoir to increase the yield of this source. With this completed, the water sources of the DDCWSA will be nearly enough to serve the projected 2030 demand. The remaining 1 MGD of projected demand should be filled by transfers (wholesale purchases) from Cobb County. Infrastructure should be kept in place to allow larger transfers from Cobb County to fill peak demands on an emergency basis. The table on the following page summarizes the phasing plan for capital improvements recommended in Douglas County. Non-Capital Programs The following non-capital programs are specific to Douglas County. These programs are in addition to those that apply to all counties within the District, as indicated on the first page of Appendix B. Maintain interconnections and water supply agreements with Cobb County. Determine required improvements to accommodate routine purchase of 1 MGD AADD/1 MGD PDD from Cobb County, based on the Demand Centers outlined in the recommended solution. Use the 1998 through 2002 drought of record to perform yield analysis for the Bear Creek and Dog River Reservoirs. Work with CCMWA to determine requirements for water quality compatibility of wholesale purchase. WATER SUPPLY AND WATER CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT PLAN DATE: SEPTEMBER 2003 P:\2317-002\TASK 13\FINAL REPORT SEP. 2003\FINAL WORD\APPENDIX B WS- COUNTY BY COUNTY WATER PLAN.DOC B-14 Appendix B: Water Supply Implementation Plan Douglas County Water Supply Implementation Plan - MNGWPD Phasing Plan By 2005 2006 to 2010 2011 to 2020 2021 to 2030 Facilities Proposed Projects Plant Proposed Projects Plant Proposed Projects Plant Proposed Projects Plant Capacity at Capacity at Capacity at Capacity at Project End of Project End of Project End of Project End of Project Type Capacity Period Project Type Capacity Period Project Type Capacity Period Project Type Capacity Period (MGD-PDD) (MGD-PDD) (MGD-PDD) (MGD-PDD) (MGD-PDD) (MGD-PDD) (MGD-PDD) (MGD-PDD) DDCWSA Bear Creek WTP No expansions proposed 16 Expansion 11 27 Expansion 7 34 Expansion 3 37 Demand Projections & Total Capacity (MGD-PDD) 38 in Douglas 16 27 in Douglas 27 31 in Douglas 34 - 1 from Cobb 37 37 in Douglas Notes: (1) Expansion is intended to be in operation before the end of the period shown. Exact timing to be determined in local water and wastewater management planning. Planning, design, and construction may begin in the previous period. WATER SUPPLY AND WATER CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT PLAN DATE: SEPTEMBER 2003 P:\2317-002\TASK 13\FINAL REPORT SEP. 2003\FINAL WORD\APPENDIX B WS- COUNTY BY COUNTY WATER PLAN.DOC B-15 Appendix B: Water Supply Implementation Plan Fayette County Water Supply Implementation Plan - MNGWPD Summary of Needs Water Demands & Capacities 2030 Projected Demand (AADD MGD)1 2030 Projected Demand (PDD MGD)1 Fayette County 25 40 Total Projected Demand 25 40 2005 Capacity Retained 14 23 New Capacity for 2030 11 17 Total Planned 2030 Capacity 25 40 (1) (+) Indicates supply to another county; (-) indicates demand filled by transfer from another county. Capital Projects Projections indicate that with the addition of Lake McIntosh, water sources should be adequate through 2030. Lake McIntosh will enhance the reliability of Fayette County's water supply, which currently depends primarily on runof-the-river withdrawals and smaller off-stream reservoirs. The City of Fayetteville should build the new off-stream storage reservoir that they are currently planning. This will give Fayetteville a reliable water source and allow their WTP to operate through droughts, which in past years would force a shut-down of the WTP. Infrastructure should be kept in place to allow transfers from the City of Atlanta to fill peak demands on an emergency basis. The capital improvements are summarized in the attached phasing plan for Fayette County. Non-Capital Programs The following non-capital programs are specific to Fayette County. These programs are in addition to those that apply to all counties within the District, as indicated on the first page of Appendix B. Promote development of Lake McIntosh. Maintain interconnections and water supply agreements with the City of Atlanta and Clayton County. Use the 1998 through 2002 drought of record to perform yield analysis for the Lake McIntosh Reservoir, Horton Creek Reservoir, and the Lake Peachtree/Lake Kedron Reservoirs. WATER SUPPLY AND WATER CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT PLAN DATE: SEPTEMBER 2003 P:\2317-002\TASK 13\FINAL REPORT SEP. 2003\FINAL WORD\APPENDIX B WS- COUNTY BY COUNTY WATER PLAN.DOC B-16 Appendix B: Water Supply Implementation Plan Fayette County Water Supply Implementation Plan - MNGWPD Phasing Plan Facilities Fayette Crosstown WTP Fayette South WTP By 2005 2006 to 2010 Proposed Projects Plant Proposed Capacity at Projects Plant Capacity at Project End of Project End of Project Type Capacity Period Project Type Capacity Period (MGD-PDD) (MGD-PDD) (MGD-PDD) (MGD-PDD) 2011 to 2020 2021 to 2030 Proposed Projects Project Type Project Capacity (MGD-PDD) Plant Capacity at End of Period (MGD-PDD) Proposed Projects Project Project Type Capacity (MGD-PDD) Plant Capacity at End of Period (MGD-PDD) No expansions proposed 13.5 No expansions proposed 13.5 Expansion 4.31 281 Expansion 61 351 No expansions proposed 6.2 No expansions proposed 6.2 Lake McIntosh New facility not constructed by 2005 Initial Construction 8 MGDAADD Yield NA No expansions proposed NA No expansions proposed NA Fayetteville WTP No expansions proposed 3 Expansion 2 5 No expansions proposed 5 No expansions proposed 5 Demand Projections & Total Capacity 22.7 25 in Fayette 24.7 33 in Fayette 33 40 in Fayette 40 (MGD-PDD) Notes: (1) Where proposed capacity is allotted to more than one facility, it is to be shared between them, as determined by joint local water supply planning. (2) Expansion is intended to be in operation before the end of the period shown. Exact timing to be determined in local water and wastewater management planning. Planning, design, and construction may begin in the previous period. WATER SUPPLY AND WATER CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT PLAN DATE: SEPTEMBER 2003 P:\2317-002\TASK 13\FINAL REPORT SEP. 2003\FINAL WORD\APPENDIX B WS- COUNTY BY COUNTY WATER PLAN.DOC B-17 Appendix B: Water Supply Implementation Plan Forsyth County Water Supply Implementation Plan - MNGWPD Summary of Needs Water Demands & Capacities 2030 Projected Demand (AADD MGD)1 2030 Projected Demand (PDD MGD)1 Forsyth County 57 91 Total Projected Demand 57 91 2005 Capacity Retained 20 32 New Capacity for 2030 37 59 Total Planned 2030 Capacity 57 91 (1) (+) Indicates supply to another county; (-) indicates demand filled by transfer from another county. Capital Projects If the reclaimed water discharge amounts recommended in this Water Supply Plan for 2030 can be met, then Lake Lanier should continue to be used as the water source for all of Forsyth County including the City of Cumming. Both the Cumming WTP and the Forsyth County WTP should be expanded. A local plan should be developed jointly by Forsyth County and City of Cumming to work out a cost-effective apportionment of capacity between the two facilities and based on the growth of their respective service areas. If 2030 reclaimed water targets for Lake Lanier are not met, then Forsyth County should be partially served from Etowah sources. Possible Etowah Basin contingency water supplies would be: The Cherokee County system could be extended to serve parts of western Forsyth County. To meet this new demand along with the projected demands in Cherokee as well as possible future demands in Pickens and Dawson Counties, Cherokee may need to have access to Lake Allatoona to supplement its current source, the Yellow Creek Reservoir. Cherokee, Forsyth, Dawson, and Pickens Counties have considered constructing a new Upper Etowah Basin reservoir as a joint project (location to be determined). If this reservoir is constructed it could be an Etowah Basin source for Forsyth County. Forsyth County on its own could develop an Etowah basin source (either inside or outside Forsyth County) to supply a portion of its water needs. Forsyth County could purchase water from the Cobb County Marietta Water Authority. The capital improvements based water supply from Lake Lanier are summarized in the attached phasing plan for Forsyth County. Non-Capital Programs The following non-capital programs are specific to Forsyth County. These programs are in addition to those that apply to all counties within the District as indicated on the first page of Appendix B. Maintain interconnections and water supply agreements with Cherokee, Fulton, and Dawson Counties. Carry out joint planning studies between Forsyth County and the City of Cumming to work out a cost- effective apportionment of capacity between the two facilities. WATER SUPPLY AND WATER CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT PLAN DATE: SEPTEMBER 2003 P:\2317-002\TASK 13\FINAL REPORT SEP. 2003\FINAL WORD\APPENDIX B WS- COUNTY BY COUNTY WATER PLAN.DOC B-18 Appendix B: Water Supply Implementation Plan Forsyth County Water Supply Implementation Plan - MNGWPD Phasing Plan Facilities Forsyth WTP Cumming WTP By 2005 2006 to 2010 2011 to 2020 2021 to 2030 Proposed Projects Plant Capacity at Proposed Projects Plant Capacity at Proposed Projects Plant Capacity at Proposed Projects Plant Capacity at Project End of Project End of Project End of Project End of Project Type Capacity Period Project Type Capacity Period Project Type Capacity Period Project Type Capacity Period (MGD-PDD) (MGD-PDD) (MGD-PDD) (MGD-PDD) (MGD-PDD) (MGD-PDD) (MGD-PDD) (MGD-PDD) No expansions proposed 14 Expansion of one facility 12 441 Expansion of one facility 22 661 Expansion of one facility 25 911 No expansions proposed 18 Demand Projections & Total Capacity (MGD-PDD) 32 44 in Forsyth 44 66 in Forsyth 66 91 in Forsyth 91 Notes: (1) Where proposed capacity is allotted to more than one facility, it is to be shared between them, as determined by joint local water supply planning. (2) Expansion is intended to be in operation before the end of the period shown. Exact timing to be determined in local water and wastewater management planning. Planning, design, and construction may begin in the previous period. WATER SUPPLY AND WATER CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT PLAN DATE: SEPTEMBER 2003 P:\2317-002\TASK 13\FINAL REPORT SEP. 2003\FINAL WORD\APPENDIX B WS- COUNTY BY COUNTY WATER PLAN.DOC B-19 Appendix B: Water Supply Implementation Plan Fulton County Water Supply Implementation Plan - MNGWPD Summary of Needs Water Demands & Capacities 2030 Projected Demand (AADD MGD)1 2030 Projected Demand (PDD MGD)1 Fulton County 254 407 From Cobb County -33 -53 To Coweta County +9 +15 Total Projected Demand 230 369 2005 Capacity Retained 190 304 New Capacity for 2030 40 65 Total Planned 2030 Capacity 230 369 (1) (+) Indicates supply to another county; (-) indicates demand filled by transfer from another county. Capital Projects As part of the effort to avoid overtaxing the Chattahoochee River, it is recommended that Fulton County receive a transfer (wholesale purchase) of 33 MGD AAD from the Cobb County-Marietta Water Authority by 2030. In turn, the City of Atlanta should provide part of the water required by Coweta County. The infrastructure to provide water to Fayette and Clayton Counties on a peak emergency basis should also be maintained and expanded as necessary. Future expansion should be concentrated at the Atlanta-Fulton County WTP. This WTP draws from an upstream location and has an off-stream reservoir that improves its source reliability. The WTPs of Roswell and Palmetto are small facilities in areas that can be served by larger, more reliable, and more cost-effective WTPs. It is recommended that these two facilities be phased out of operation over the thirty-year planning period. The City of Roswell will have the option of purchasing water directly from the Cobb County-Marietta Water Authority or Fulton County on the basis of a wholesale service agreement between these two water systems. If the Bear Creek Reservoir planned by the South Fulton Municipal Regional Water and Sewer Authority can be permitted and constructed, it should be added to the Plan. It is expected that a new WTP will be constructed to treat water from this source. The capital improvements are summarized in the attached phasing plan for Fulton County. Non-Capital Programs The following non-capital programs are specific to Fulton County. These programs are in addition to those that apply to all counties within the District, as indicated on the first page of Appendix B. Maintain interconnections and water supply agreements with Clayton, Fayette, Coweta, DeKalb, Cobb, Forsyth, and Gwinnett Counties. Evaluate required improvements to accommodate routine sale of 6 MGD AADD/9 MGD PDD to Coweta County, and routine purchase of 33 MGD AADD/53 MGD PDD from Cobb County, based on the Demand Centers outlined in the recommended solution. WATER SUPPLY AND WATER CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT PLAN DATE: SEPTEMBER 2003 P:\2317-002\TASK 13\FINAL REPORT SEP. 2003\FINAL WORD\APPENDIX B WS- COUNTY BY COUNTY WATER PLAN.DOC B-20 Appendix B: Water Supply Implementation Plan Fulton County Water Supply Implementation Plan - MNGWPD Phasing Plan By 2005 2006 to 2010 2011 to 2020 2021 to 2030 Facilities Proposed Projects Plant Proposed Projects Plant Capacity at Capacity at Project End of Project End of Project Type Capacity Period Project Type Capacity Period (MGD-PDD) (MGD-PDD) (MGD-PDD) (MGD-PDD) Proposed Projects Plant Project Type Project Capacity (MGD-PDD) Capacity at End of Period (MGD-PDD) Proposed Projects Plant Project Type Project Capacity (MGD-PDD) Capacity at End of Period (MGD-PDD) Atlanta-Fulton County WTP No expansions proposed 90 Expansion 65 155 No expansions proposed 155 No expansions proposed 155 Atlanta Hemphill WTP No expansions proposed 137 No expansions proposed 137 No expansions proposed 137 No expansions proposed 137 Atlanta Chattahoochee WTP No expansions proposed 65 No expansions proposed 65 No expansions proposed 65 No expansions proposed 65 Roswell WTP No expansions proposed 1 No expansions proposed 1 Decommissi on -1 0 Decommissioned 0 East Point WTP No expansions proposed 12 No expansions proposed 12 No expansions proposed 12 No expansions proposed 12 Palmetto WTP No expansions proposed 0.6 No expansions proposed 0.6 Decommissi on -0.6 0 Decommissioned 0 Distribution System Connection with Cobb County 2 New transmission pipe not constructed by 2005 New transmission pipe not constructed by 2010 Initial Construction 53 MGD-PDD NA No expansions proposed NA Distribution System Connection to serve Coweta County 3 New transmission pipe not constructed by 2005 Initial Construction See Coweta County Phasing Plan for details See Coweta County Phasing Plan for details Demand Projections & Total Capacity (MGD-PDD) 306 352 in Fulton 7 in Clayton 1 in Fayette 9 in Coweta 369 Total 373 in Fulton 371 - 14 from Cobb 10 in Coweta 369 Total 407 in Fulton 369 - 53 from Cobb 15 in Coweta 369 369 Total Notes: (1) Expansion is intended to be in operation before the end of the period shown. Exact timing to be determined in local water and wastewater management planning. Planning, design, and construction may begin in the previous period. (2) Project will be based on a joint plan developed by the Cobb-Marietta Water Authority and Fulton County. (3) Project will be based on a joint plan developed by Coweta County and City of Atlanta. WATER SUPPLY AND WATER CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT PLAN DATE: SEPTEMBER 2003 P:\2317-002\TASK 13\FINAL REPORT SEP. 2003\FINAL WORD\APPENDIX B WS- COUNTY BY COUNTY WATER PLAN.DOC B-21 Appendix B: Water Supply Implementation Plan Gwinnett County Water Supply Implementation Plan - MNGWPD Summary of Needs Water Demands & Capacities Gwinnett County Total Projected Demand 2005 Capacity Retained New Capacity for 2030 Total Planned 2030 Capacity 2030 Projected Demand (AADD MGD) 165 165 142 23 165 2030 Projected Demand (PDD MGD) 264 264 227 37 264 Capital Projects Expand Shoal Creek WTP to meet future demands. The City of Buford WTP can be retained. Buford and Gwinnett County should develop a joint planning study to determine the relative merits of serving Buford from its existing WTP or from Gwinnett County facilities. If the Buford WTP is retained, then it should be expanded to 4 MGD in accordance with Buford's current plan. The table on the following page summarizes the phasing plan for capital improvements recommended in Gwinnett County. Non-Capital Programs The following non-capital programs are specific to Gwinnett County. These programs are in addition to those that apply to all counties within the District, as indicated on the first page of Appendix B. Maintain interconnections and water supply agreements with Hall, Fulton, DeKalb, Cobb, Forsyth, and Gwinnett Counties. Carry out joint planning studies between Gwinnett County and the City of Buford. WATER SUPPLY AND WATER CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT PLAN DATE: SEPTEMBER 2003 P:\2317-002\TASK 13\FINAL REPORT SEP. 2003\FINAL WORD\APPENDIX B WS- COUNTY BY COUNTY WATER PLAN.DOC B-22 Appendix B: Water Supply Implementation Plan Gwinnett County Water Supply Implementation Plan - MNGWPD Phasing Plan By 2005 2006 to 2010 2011 to 2020 2021 to 2030 Facilities Proposed Projects Plant Proposed Projects Plant Proposed Projects Plant Proposed Projects Plant Capacity at Capacity at Capacity at Capacity at Project End of Project End of Project End of Project End of Project Type Capacity Period Project Type Capacity Period Project Type Capacity Period Project Type Capacity Period (MGD-PDD) (MGD-PDD) (MGD-PDD) (MGD-PDD) (MGD-PDD) (MGD-PDD) (MGD-PDD) (MGD-PDD) Gwinnett Lake Lanier WTP No expansions proposed 150 No expansions proposed 150 No expansions proposed No 150 expansions proposed 150 Gwinnett Shoal Creek Initial WTP Construction 75 75 No expansions proposed 75 No expansions proposed 75 Expansion 35 110 Buford WTP No expansions proposed 2 Expansion 2 4 No expansions proposed 4 No expansions proposed 4 Demand Projections & Total Capacity (MGD-PDD) 189 in Gwinnett 227 1 in Rockdale 229 224 in Gwinnett 229 264 in Gwinnett 264 190 Total Notes: (1) Expansion is intended to be in operation before the end of the period shown. Exact timing to be determined in local water and wastewater management planning. Planning, design, and construction may begin in the previous period. WATER SUPPLY AND WATER CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT PLAN DATE: SEPTEMBER 2003 P:\2317-002\TASK 13\FINAL REPORT SEP. 2003\FINAL WORD\APPENDIX B WS- COUNTY BY COUNTY WATER PLAN.DOC B-23 Appendix B: Water Supply Implementation Plan Hall County Water Supply Implementation Plan - MNGWPD Summary of Needs Water Demands & Capacities Hall County Total Projected Demand 2005 Capacity Retained New Capacity for 2030 Total Planned 2030 Capacity 2030 Projected Demand (AADD MGD) 49 49 23 26 49 2030 Projected Demand (PDD MGD) 78 78 38 40 78 Capital Projects The Cedar Creek WTP should be expanded to 11 MGD to fully utilize the yield of the Cedar Creek impoundment. This expansion will enable Hall County to partially meet its demand within the Oconee basin from an Oconee basin source. To fill the rest of the projected demand from Hall County, the City of Gainesville's two WTPs should be expanded. The table on the following page summarizes the phasing plan for capital improvements recommended in Hall County. Non-Capital Programs The following non-capital programs are specific to Hall County. These programs are in addition to those that apply to all counties within the District, as indicated on the first page of Appendix B. Maintain interconnections and water supply agreements with Gwinnett and White Counties. Use the 1998 through 2002 drought of record to perform yield analysis for the Cedar Creek Reservoir. Carry out joint planning studies between Hall County and the City of Gainesville. Promote development of Glades Reservoir. WATER SUPPLY AND WATER CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT PLAN DATE: SEPTEMBER 2003 P:\2317-002\TASK 13\FINAL REPORT SEP. 2003\FINAL WORD\APPENDIX B WS- COUNTY BY COUNTY WATER PLAN.DOC B-24 Appendix B: Water Supply Implementation Plan Hall County Water Supply Implementation Plan - MNGWPD Phasing Plan By 2005 2006 to 2010 2011 to 2020 2021 to 2030 Facilities Proposed Projects Plant Proposed Projects Plant Proposed Projects Plant Proposed Projects Plant Capacity at Capacity at Capacity at Capacity at Project End of Project End of Project End of Project End of Project Type Capacity Period Project Type Capacity Period Project Type Capacity Period Project Type Capacity Period (MGD-PDD) (MGD-PDD) (MGD-PDD) (MGD-PDD) (MGD-PDD) (MGD-PDD) (MGD-PDD) (MGD-PDD) Gainesville Riverside WTP No expansions proposed 25 Gainesville Lakeside WTP No expansions proposed Expansion of one facility 12 10 471 Expansion of one facility 14 611 Expansion of one facility 6 671 Hall Cedar Creek WTP Initial Construction 2.5 2.5 Expansion 8.5 11 No expansions proposed 11 No expansions proposed 11 Cedar Creek Reservoir Initial Construction 7 MGDAADD Yield NA No expansions proposed NA No expansions proposed NA No expansions proposed NA Demand Projections & Total Capacity (MGD-PDD) 37.5 51 in Hall 58 65 in Hall 72 78 in Hall 78 Notes: (1) Where proposed capacity is allotted to more than one facility, it is to be shared between them, as determined by joint local water supply planning. (2) Expansion is intended to be in operation before the end of the period shown. Exact timing to be determined in local water and wastewater management planning. Planning, design, and construction may begin in the previous period. WATER SUPPLY AND WATER CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT PLAN DATE: SEPTEMBER 2003 P:\2317-002\TASK 13\FINAL REPORT SEP. 2003\FINAL WORD\APPENDIX B WS- COUNTY BY COUNTY WATER PLAN.DOC B-25 Appendix B: Water Supply Implementation Plan Henry County Water Supply Implementation Plan - MNGWPD Summary of Needs Water Demands & Capacities Henry County Total Projected Demand 2005 Capacity Retained New Capacity for 2030 Total Planned 2030 Capacity 2030 Projected Demand (AADD MGD) 41 41 32 9 41 2030 Projected Demand (PDD MGD) 66 66 52 14 66 Capital Projects It is recommended that the McDonough WTP be retained because it has a reliable source that could be expanded. Henry County and McDonough should develop a joint plan for expanding their facilities to meet the projected demand increase through 2030. The table on the following page summarizes the phasing plan for capital improvements in Henry County. Non-Capital Programs The following non-capital programs are specific to Henry County. These programs are in addition to those that apply to all counties within the District, as indicated on the first page of Appendix B. Promote development of Tussahaw Reservoir. Maintain interconnections and water supply agreements with DeKalb, Clayton, Newton, Butts, and Spalding Counties. Carry out joint planning studies between Henry County and the City of McDonough. Use the 1998 through 2002 drought of record to perform yield analysis for the Tussahaw, Towaliga, John Fargason, Garner, and Long Branch Reservoirs. WATER SUPPLY AND WATER CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT PLAN DATE: SEPTEMBER 2003 P:\2317-002\TASK 13\FINAL REPORT SEP. 2003\FINAL WORD\APPENDIX B WS- COUNTY BY COUNTY WATER PLAN.DOC B-26 Appendix B: Water Supply Implementation Plan Henry County Water Supply Implementation Plan - MNGWPD Phasing Plan Facilities By 2005 2006 to 2010 2011 to 2020 2021 to 2030 Proposed Projects Plant Proposed Projects Plant Proposed Projects Plant Proposed Projects Plant Capacity at Capacity at Capacity at Capacity at Project End of Project End of Project End of Project End of Project Type Capacity Period Project Type Capacity Period Project Type Capacity Period Project Type Capacity Period (MGD-PDD) (MGD-PDD) (MGD-PDD) (MGD-PDD) (MGD-PDD) (MGD-PDD) (MGD-PDD) (MGD-PDD) Henry Towaliga WTP No expansions proposed 24 No expansions proposed 24 No expansions proposed 24 Expansion of one facility 14 641 Henry Tussahaw WTP Initial Construction 26 13 No expansions proposed 13 No expansions proposed 26 Tussahaw Reservoir Initial Construction 26 MGDAADD Yield NA No expansions proposed NA No expansions proposed NA No expansions proposed NA McDonough WTP No expansions proposed 2.4 No expansions proposed 2.4 No expansions proposed 2.4 No expansions proposed 2.4 Demand Projections & Total Capacity (MGD-PDD) 39.4 32 in Henry 39.4 45 in Henry 52.4 58 in Henry 66.4 Notes: (1) Where proposed capacity is allotted to more than one facility, it is to be shared between them, as determined by joint local water supply planning. (2) Expansion is intended to be in operation before the end of the period shown. Exact timing to be determined in local water and wastewater management planning. Planning, design, and construction may begin in the previous period. WATER SUPPLY AND WATER CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT PLAN DATE: SEPTEMBER 2003 P:\2317-002\TASK 13\FINAL REPORT SEP. 2003\FINAL WORD\APPENDIX B WS- COUNTY BY COUNTY WATER PLAN.DOC B-27 Appendix B: Water Supply Implementation Plan Paulding County Water Supply Implementation Plan - MNGWPD Summary of Needs Water Demands & Capacities 2030 Projected Demand (AADD MGD)1 2030 Projected Demand (PDD MGD)1 Paulding County 27 43 From Cobb County -27 -43 Total Projected Demand 0 0 2005 Capacity Retained 0 0 New Capacity for 2030 0 0 Total Planned 2030 Capacity 0 0 (1) (+) Indicates supply to another county; (-) indicates demand filled by transfer from another county. Capital Projects It is recommended that Paulding County continue to be served by CCMWA's existing WTPs (Wyckoff WTP and Quarles WTP) through 2030. The table on the following page summarizes the phasing plan for capital improvements in Paulding County. Non-Capital Programs The following non-capital programs are specific to Paulding County. These programs are in addition to those that apply to all counties within the District, as indicated on the first page of Appendix B. Maintain interconnections and water supply agreements with Cobb County. Evaluate required improvements to accommodate routine purchase of 27 MGD AADD/43 MGD PDD from Cobb County, based on the Demand Centers outlined in the recommended solution. WATER SUPPLY AND WATER CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT PLAN DATE: SEPTEMBER 2003 P:\2317-002\TASK 13\FINAL REPORT SEP. 2003\FINAL WORD\APPENDIX B WS- COUNTY BY COUNTY WATER PLAN.DOC B-28 Appendix B: Water Supply Implementation Plan Paulding County Water Supply Implementation Plan MNGWPD Facilities By 2005 2006 to 2010 2011 to 2020 2021 to 2030 Proposed Projects Plant Proposed Projects Plant Proposed Projects Plant Proposed Projects Plant Capacity at Capacity at Capacity at Capacity at Project End of Project End of Project End of Project End of Project Type Capacity Period Project Type Capacity Period Project Type Capacity Period Project Type Capacity Period (MGD-PDD) (MGD-PDD) (MGD-PDD) (MGD-PDD) (MGD-PDD) (MGD-PDD) (MGD-PDD) (MGD-PDD) No WTPs Existing or Planned No WTPs proposed 0 No WTPs proposed 0 No WTPs proposed 0 No WTPs proposed 0 New Distribution System Connections with Cobb County System capacity expanded as necessary to meet demands Demand Projections & Total Capacity (MGD-PDD) System capacity expanded NA as necessary to meet demands 22 in Paulding 0 - 22 from Cobb 0 Total System capacity expanded System capacity expanded NA as necessary to meet NA as necessary to meet NA demands demands 30 in Paulding 43 in Paulding 0 - 30 from Cobb 0 - 43 from Cobb 0 0 Total 0 Total Notes: (1) Expansion is intended to be in operation before the end of the period shown. Exact timing to be determined in local water and wastewater management planning. Planning, design, and construction may begin in the previous period. WATER SUPPLY AND WATER CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT PLAN DATE: SEPTEMBER 2003 P:\2317-002\TASK 13\FINAL REPORT SEP. 2003\FINAL WORD\APPENDIX B WS- COUNTY BY COUNTY WATER PLAN.DOC B-29 Appendix B: Water Supply Implementation Plan Rockdale County Water Supply Implementation Plan - MNGWPD Summary of Needs Water Demands & Capacities Rockdale County Total Projected Demand 2005 Capacity Retained New Capacity for 2030 Total Planned 2030 Capacity 2030 Projected Demand (AADD MGD) 25 25 14 11 25 2030 Projected Demand (PDD MGD) 40 40 22 18 40 Capital Projects Projections indicate that Big Haynes Creek Reservoir should provide adequate supply through 2030. Rockdale County should expand its WTP to meet demand growth through 2030. Infrastructure should be kept in place to allow transfers from DeKalb and Gwinnett Counties to fill peak demands on an emergency basis. The table on the following page summarizes the phasing plan for capital improvements in Rockdale County. Non-Capital Programs The following non-capital programs are specific to Rockdale County. These programs are in addition to those that apply to all counties within the District, as indicated on the first page of Appendix B. Maintain interconnections and water supply agreements with DeKalb, Gwinnett, and Newton Counties. WATER SUPPLY AND WATER CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT PLAN DATE: SEPTEMBER 2003 P:\2317-002\TASK 13\FINAL REPORT SEP. 2003\FINAL WORD\APPENDIX B WS- COUNTY BY COUNTY WATER PLAN.DOC B-30 Appendix B: Water Supply Implementation Plan Rockdale County Water Supply Implementation Plan - MNGWPD Phasing Plan Facilities By 2005 2006 to 2010 2011 to 2020 2021 to 2030 Proposed Projects Plant Capacity at Proposed Projects Plant Capacity at Proposed Projects Plant Capacity at Proposed Projects Plant Capacity at Project End of Project End of Project End of Project End of Project Type Capacity Period Project Type Capacity Period Project Type Capacity Period Project Type Capacity Period (MGD-PDD) (MGD-PDD) (MGD-PDD) (MGD-PDD) (MGD-PDD) (MGD-PDD) (MGD-PDD) (MGD-PDD) Rockdale Big Haynes Creek WTP No expansions proposed 22 No expansions proposed 22 Expansion 13 35 Expansion 5 40 Demand Projections & Total Capacity (MGD-PDD) 22 22 in Rockdale 22 29 in Rockdale 35 40 in Rockdale 40 Notes: (1) Expansion is intended to be in operation before the end of the period shown. Exact timing to be determined in local water and wastewater management planning. Planning, design, and construction may begin in the previous period. WATER SUPPLY AND WATER CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT PLAN DATE: SEPTEMBER 2003 P:\2317-002\TASK 13\FINAL REPORT SEP. 2003\FINAL WORD\APPENDIX B WS- COUNTY BY COUNTY WATER PLAN.DOC B-31 Appendix B: Water Supply Implementation Plan Walton County Water Supply Implementation Plan - MNGWPD Summary of Needs Water Demands & Capacities Walton County Total Projected Demand 2005 Capacity Retained New Capacity for 2030 Total Planned 2030 Capacity 2030 Projected Demand (AADD MGD) 19 19 9 10 19 2030 Projected Demand (PDD MGD) 30 30 14 16 30 Capital Projects The yield of the JT Briscoe Reservoir does not allow much expansion of the City of Monroe's WTP beyond the currently planned 10 MGD. To satisfy the demand from the Ocmulgee portion of Walton using Ocmulgee sources to the degree possible, the Lake Varner WTP should be expanded to fully utilize Walton County's 25% share of the Lake Varner yield (6 MGD AAD). The rest of Walton's demand growth should be met by the new WTP planned for the Hard Labor Creek Reservoir. The Social Circle WTP is small and draws from an unreliable run-of-the-river source. It is recommended that this facility be phased out of operation over the thirty-year planning period. The table on the following page summarizes the phasing plan for capital improvements in Walton County. Non-Capital Programs The following non-capital programs are specific to Walton County. These programs are in addition to those that apply to all counties within the District, as indicated on the first page of Appendix B. Promote development of the Hard Labor Creek Reservoir. Maintain interconnections and water supply agreements with Gwinnett, Newton, Barrow, and Oconee Counties. WATER SUPPLY AND WATER CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT PLAN DATE: SEPTEMBER 2003 P:\2317-002\TASK 13\FINAL REPORT SEP. 2003\FINAL WORD\APPENDIX B WS- COUNTY BY COUNTY WATER PLAN.DOC B-32 Appendix B: Water Supply Implementation Plan Walton County Water Supply Implementation Plan - MNGWPD Phasing Plan Facilities Monroe WTP By 2005 2006 to 2010 2011 to 2020 Proposed Projects Plant Proposed Projects Plant Proposed Projects Capacity at Capacity at Project Type Project End of Project End of Project Capacity Period Project Type Capacity Period Project Type Capacity (MGD-PDD) (MGD-PDD) (MGD-PDD) (MGD-PDD) (MGD-PDD) Plant Capacity at End of Period (MGDPDD) 2021 to 2030 Proposed Projects Plant Capacity at Project End of Project Type Capacity Period (MGD-PDD) (MGD-PDD) Expansion 4 10 No expansions proposed 10 No expansions proposed 10 No expansions proposed 10 Newton/Walton Lake Varner WTP No expansions proposed 3.75 No expansions proposed 3.75 Expansion 4.25 8 No expansions proposed 8 Social Circle WTP No expansions proposed 1 No expansions proposed 1 Decommission -1 0 Decommissioned 0 Hard Labor Creek WTP New Facility not Constructed by 2005 Initial Construction 7 7 No expansions proposed 7 Expansion 7 14 Hard Labor Creek Reservoir New Facility not Constructed by 2005 Initial Construction 28 Demand Projections & Total Capacity (MGD-PDD) 14.75 18 in Walton NA No expansions proposed NA No expansions proposed NA 21.75 24 in Walton 25 31 in Walton 323 Notes: (1) Expansion is intended to be in operation before the end of the period shown. Exact timing to be determined in local water and wastewater management planning. Planning, design, and construction may begin in the previous period. (2) At Monroe WTP the capacity is greater than the demand in 2030. Additional capacity will be available for use beyond 2030. WATER SUPPLY AND WATER CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT PLAN DATE: SEPTEMBER 2003 P:\2317-002\TASK 13\FINAL REPORT SEP. 2003\FINAL WORD\APPENDIX B WS- COUNTY BY COUNTY WATER PLAN.DOC B-33 Appendix C Partner Organizations CWC Target Partnerships/Sponsorships Master List Kelley O'Brien, CWC Coordinator Identifying Partners to Collaborate on Efforts Environmental Organizations American Water Resources Association Elachee Nature Science Center Georgia Conservancy Georgia Ground Water Association Georgia Well Drinkers Association Georgia Lake Management Society Georgia Soil and Water Conservation of Georgia Georgia Environmental Organization (GEO) Georgia Rural Water Association Natural Resources Conservation Society National Wildlife Federation Soil Science Society of Georgia American Water Works Association Trout Unlimited Georgia Sierra Club (Gwinnett Chapter & Metro Atlanta Chapter) GASMA Keep Georgia Beautiful Foundation Georgia Lakes Society, Inc. Oakhurst Community Garden Project, Inc. EeinGeorgia.org ECO-Action Outdoor Activity Center GA Environmental Technology Chattahoochee Cold Water Tailrace Fishery Foundation, Inc Trees Atlanta, Inc. Trust for Public LandChattahoochee River Land Protection Campaign Southface Energy Institute WATER SUPPLY AND WATER CONSERVATION PLAN C-1 DATE: SEPTEMBER 2003 P:\2317-002\TASK 13\FINAL REPORT SEP. 2003\FINAL WORD\APPENDIX C WS- PARTNER ORGANIZATIONS.DOC Appendix C Partner Organizations RiversAlive Georgia Canoeing Association Georgians for Responsible Growth Georgia Environmental Facilities Authority Georgia Environmental Technology Consortium Georgia Environmental Council Upper Chattahoochee Riverkeeper Lake Lanier Association Chattowah Open Land Trust The Wilderness Society Cochran Mill Nature Center Environmental Defense Georgians for Responsible Growth Save Our Communities The Nature Conservancy Georgia Environmental Facilities Authority Georgia Environmental Technology Consortium Georgia Environmental Council Government Environmental Agencies Georgia Department of Community Affairs Georgia Department of Industry, Trade and Tourism Georgia Government Finance Officers Association Georgia Water & Pollution Control Association National Weather Service, SE River Forecast Center P2AD U.S. Army Corps of Engineers: South Atlantic Division, Mobile, Savannah EPD U.S. Environmental Protection Agency U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Federal Emergency Management Agency Georgia Emergency Management Agency Governmental Organizations Association Of County Commissioners Of Georgia PTA- Georgia Congress Georgia Public Library System State of Georgia, Community Affairs GA DOT Georgia Municipal Association Regional Development Centers Local Governments CCMWA (Cobb County-Marietta Water Authority) Public Utilities GA Tech Extension Service/Water Quality WATER SUPPLY AND WATER CONSERVATION PLAN C-2 DATE: SEPTEMBER 2003 P:\2317-002\TASK 13\FINAL REPORT SEP. 2003\FINAL WORD\APPENDIX C WS- PARTNER ORGANIZATIONS.DOC Appendix C Partner Organizations GA Public School System GA DOT Chamber of Commerce Metro Atlanta Chamber Cobb County Chamber of Commerce Dekalb County Chamber of Commerce Gwinnett County Chamber of Commerce Fulton County Chamber of Commerce Clayton County Chamber of Commerce Organizations That Volunteer for Environmental Causes Georgia Water Wise Council University of Georgia Extension Service Regional Business Coalition, Inc The Nature Conservancy Georgia Tire Dealers And Retreaders Hands on Atlanta GA SWANA Central Atlanta Progress Atlanta Press Club Midtown Alliance SouthStar Community Development Corporation County/City Parks and Recreation Departments Clayton County Parks & Recreation Cobb County Parks & Recreation Dekalb County Parks & Recreation Gwinnett County Parks & Recreation Fulton County Parks & Recreation The City of Atlanta Bureau of Parks City of Duluth Parks and Recreation City of Decatur Parks and Recreation City of Marietta Parks and Recreation Atlanta Board of Realtors Greater North Fulton Chamber of Commerce Associations Georgia Association of Convenience Stores Greater Atlanta Homebuilders Association Georgia Retail Association Georgia Soft Drink Association National Association of Industrial and Office Parks Atlanta Women Business Owners American Subcontractors Association WATER SUPPLY AND WATER CONSERVATION PLAN C-3 DATE: SEPTEMBER 2003 P:\2317-002\TASK 13\FINAL REPORT SEP. 2003\FINAL WORD\APPENDIX C WS- PARTNER ORGANIZATIONS.DOC Appendix C Partner Organizations Metro Atlanta Auto Dealers Association (MAADA) Southern Aerosol Technical Association (SATA) Local Business Associations For "Target" Partners Atlanta Neighborhood Development Partnership Midtown Neighbors' Association North Buckhead Civic Association Inman Park Neighborhood Association Edgewood Heights Neighborhood Association Buckhead Business Association Specific Names of Civic/Homeowners Associations Clairmont Heights Civic Association Metro Marietta Kiwanis Atlanta Airport/East Point Rotary North Cobb Rotary South Fulton Rotary West Cobb Rotary Buckhead Civitan Club Powder Springs Kiwanis Buckhead Rotary Woodstock Optimist Buckhead Atlanta Kiwanis Atlanta Civitan Club Northwest Atlanta Kiwanis Atlanta Kiwanis Young Bucks Midtown Rotary Ashford-Perimeter Center Kiwanis Ansley Atlanta Kiwanis North Dekalb Rotary Peachtree Kiwanis Decatur Civitan Rotary Club of Atlanta Dekalb Civitan Club West End Rotary Dekalb Lions Club Alpharetta Kiwanis Druid Hills Civitan Roswell Kiwanis Druid Hills Kiwanis Arborgate Condominium Northlake Rotary Arden Area Association Metro Dekalb Kiwanis Buckhead Forest Community Association Optimist Club of Downtown Decatur Chastain Park Civic Association Rotary Club of Decatur Garden Hills Civic Association South Dekalb Rotary Club Friends of Tuxedo Park Stone Mountain Rotary Wilmar-Westminster Homeowners West Dekalb Rotary Association Austell/South Cobb Rotary Moores Mill Civic Association Galleria Kiwanis Ponce Coalition Vinings Rotary Poncey-Highland Neighborhood Association Marietta Rotary Beacon Hill Homeowners Association Acworth Optimist Briarwood Hills Homeowner Association East Cobb Civitan Club Brookcliff Homeowners Association Kennesaw Optimist Cambria Hills Homeowners Association Kennesaw Town Center Kiwanis Northwest Atlanta Kiwanis Marietta Civitan Club Chattahoochee Plantation Community Marietta Kiwanis Club Association Marietta Metro Rotary Club WATER SUPPLY AND WATER CONSERVATION PLAN C-4 DATE: SEPTEMBER 2003 P:\2317-002\TASK 13\FINAL REPORT SEP. 2003\FINAL WORD\APPENDIX C WS- PARTNER ORGANIZATIONS.DOC Institutions Georgia State University Georgia Technical Institute University of Georgia Youth Focused Organizations 4-H Boy Scouts Girl Scouts Public Libraries Captain Planet Boys & Girls Clubs of Metro Atlanta Project WET Partnerships/Sponsorships Businesses Georgia Power Home Depot Coca-Cola Lowe's Home Improvement Kroger Publix ACE Hardware McDonalds Chick-Fil-A BP AMOCO QuicKTrip Atlanta Gas Light Georgia Pacific Scientific Atlanta Pike's Nurseries Garden Ridge Ben Carter Properties Cecil B day Investment Company CNM Associates Dallas Medical Investors CNN Center Ventures Cobb Galleria Center First Republic Company Intersouth Properties, Inc. Irt Property Company JDN Structured Finance MD Hodges Enterprises Inc. Office Professionals LTd. Turner Properties Shaheen & Company LP Radnor/Smith Partnership Selig Enterprises Inc. Tusk Oil Valacal Company Ackerman Development American Land & Energy Corp Barbara J Alexander Reality CGR Advisors Carter & Associates Enterprise Carter & Associates Compass Management & Leasing Cornerstone Hospitality Group Cousins Real Estate Corp Equitable Real Estate Investment Management Gables Reality Ltd. Partnership Intown Properties Jenny Pruitt & Associates Realtors Johns Creek Technology Park/Atlanta Inc. Laing Management Company NPI Property Management Corp Morris and Raper Realtors Roberts Properties Regent Partners Inc. WATER SUPPLY AND WATER CONSERVATION PLAN C-5 DATE: SEPTEMBER 2003 P:\2317-002\TASK 13\FINAL REPORT SEP. 2003\FINAL WORD\APPENDIX C WS- PARTNER ORGANIZATIONS.DOC Appendix C Partner Organizations Realmark Holdings Corp Roberts Properties Inc S Noro-U Holdings Inc Sterling Group Success 2000 Reality Group Sunlink Cooperation Wilkinson Group, Inc. Urban Systems Reality Thomas Enterprises Taylor & Mathis Inc. Wilma Inc. Abrams Properties Inc Carter & Associates Enterprises Gables Residential Trust Hanson Properties East Inc. Lecraw Julian & Company Inc. Holder Corporation Wildwood Associates Westerra Windward Llc Sansbury Corporation American Home Equities BellSouth Corporation Roy Ashley & Associates, Inc. Cingular Wireless Earthlink Trec Environmental Duke-Weeks Realty Corporation Southern Company Harold A. Dawson Company, Inc. Thomas Alan Homes, LLC Bank of America, Mid-South Banking Group Northwood Medical Specialists E. Smith Heating & Air Environmental and Land Use Group, Alston and Bird American Plastics Council AT&T Cox Media Beaulieu of America Dart Container Corporation Fibres International Peachtree Residential Properties Pactiv Corporation Simon Property Group Decatur First Bank First Union Southtrust Turner Broadcasting System (TBS) SunTrust Wachovia Wal-Mart Killearn, Inc. Post Properties, Inc. Williams-Russell and Johnson, Inc. The Draper Group Cushman & Wakefield Southwire Company REMAX AT&T Carter & Associates, LLC Cox Enterprises, Inc. Ernst & Young Ford Motor Company Georgia Natural Gas Highland Homes, Inc. Jacoby Development, Inc. Kimberly Clark Corporation King & Spalding Nortel Networks AGL Resources Ford Motor Company General Motors Corporation MARTA SunTrust Bank, Atlanta United Parcel Service Turner Broadcasting ZEP Manufacturing FedEx Target Theme Parks/Commercial Non-Environmental Attractions White Water Theme Park Six Flags Stone Mountain Grand Prix WATER SUPPLY AND WATER CONSERVATION PLAN C-6 DATE: SEPTEMBER 2003 P:\2317-002\TASK 13\FINAL REPORT SEP. 2003\FINAL WORD\APPENDIX C WS- PARTNER ORGANIZATIONS.DOC American Adventures Lake Lanier Islands Sports Teams to Partner With Braves Hawks Thrashers Falcons Atlanta Beat Health Endorsement Children's Healthcare Emory Health System Promina Appendix C Partner Organizations WATER SUPPLY AND WATER CONSERVATION PLAN C-7 DATE: SEPTEMBER 2003 P:\2317-002\TASK 13\FINAL REPORT SEP. 2003\FINAL WORD\APPENDIX C WS- PARTNER ORGANIZATIONS.DOC