STATE of GEORGIA Water Resources Management Strategy Surnmary Document Q~~ Governor ~....' , Joe Frank Harris GOVERNOR STATE OF GEORGIA OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR ATLANTA 30334 January 12, 1987 My Fellow Georgians: Much interest and concern have been expressed in recent years about Georgia's water resources. The devastating drought of 1986 focused even more attention on water. The Honorable L. L. "Pete" Phillips, Chairman of the House Natural Resources and Environment Committee, appointed a special Water Resources Subcommittee to examine water issues facing the State. Whi Ie many Southern States have targeted 1992 as the year by which they will develop strategic water management plans, Georgia has its plan now. In 1983, my first year as Governor, I proposed funding and received the full support of the General Assembly to authorize the Department of Natural Resources to initiate the development of a water budget for Georgia. The water budget has been completed, and this Summary document presents a listing of our needs and an approach for addressing those needs. Recognizing that the water budget and a management strategy were being finalized, the Subcommittee appointed by Chairman Phillips found that "the State's water management program is working efficiently and effectively." I am pleased with the Subcommittee's findings; however, to ensure that the water management program continues its effectiveness, it is imperative that we implement the strategy outlined in this document. The health of Georgia's economy and natural environment depends upon a continuing supply of clean water for citizens and communities. With the support of my office, the General Assembly, key State agencies, and local governments, .r:" we can implement this Water Resources Management Strategy and help assure a higher qual ity of Iife for all our people. With kindest regards, I remain JFH:mg Sincerely, (~F)ra.n)k.Ha"rrtis ~' Received MAR 13 1987 DOCUMENTS UGA LIBRARIES STATE OF GEOR.GIA WATER. RESOURCES MANAGEMENT STRATEGY A SUMMARY DOCUMENT I I .. -1 'j '~11 "-. TABLE OF CONTENTS I. OBJECTIVES 1 II. FRAMEWORK 2 Figure I. River Basins in Georgia 8 Table I. Water Availability and Use Summary 9 Table II. Municipal Permitted Ground Water Use 11 Table III. Municipal Permitted Surface Water Use 19 III. PUBLIC WATER SUPPLY AND FISHING LAKES 25 Figure II. Potential Public Water Supply Lake Service Areas 28 Table IV. Potential Public Water Supply Lake Participants 29 IV. Summary and Recommendations 32 APPENDIX A River Basin Highlights 33 :i d..' I. OBJECTIVES .j :~,:'l',' :~ The purpose of this sunnnary document is to briefly describe Georgia IS water resources management strategy and to identify the activities of the Environmental Protection Division (EPD) of the Department of Natural Resources in implementing the strategy. Georgia has a statewide plan for water resources. This plan consists of the four framework elements (the water withdrawal permitting program, the public water system supervision program, the statewide water budget, and the emergency water shortage plan) described in this sunnnary document. The objectives of Georgia's water resources plan are listed below. o To allocate Georgia's water resources (both ground-water and surface water) for reasonable use without impairing the quality or quantity of the resources. o To insure that all public drinking water systems consistently provide adequate amounts of safe, high quality water to Georgia's citizens. o To advise the users of the water resources of any existing potential problems or inadequacies in the source of water, the capacity of water treatment and distribution systems, or the quality of water. o To provide assistance to the users of the water resources in alleviating any current and future water resource problems or inadequacies. o To insure that all significant users of both surface water and ground-water adopt and implement water conservation plans and drought contingency plans to limit the unnecessary waste of water and to properly restrict less important uses during drought periods, or other water shortages. o To preserve the minimum flow of streams to protect aquatic life and other downstream uses by requiring new or expanded surface water users to construct reservoirs for the storage of water. o To identify optimal locations and sizes of public fishing and water I 1 supply lakes to provide reliable water sources for multiple connnunities during drought periods I In order to meet these objectives, the Environmental Protection Division is implementing the management strategy sunnnarized in this document. The fulfillment of this strategy will assure the protection and proper use of Georgia's ground-water and surface water. -1- II. FRAMEWORK The framework of Georgia's water resources management strategy consists of the following four key elements which are supported by Georgia's Water Quality Control Act, Groundwater Use Act and Safe Drinking Water Act: o Water Withdrawal Permitting Program I o Public Water System Supervision Program o Emergency Water Shortage Plan o Georgia's Water Budget (Water Availability and Use Reports) Each of these elements is briefly summarized below. Withdrawal Permit Program Georgia's water resources management strategy is implemented in large part by a system of water withdrawal (use) permits which allocate the water resources and protect the water rights of the user. Enacted by the Ground Water Use Act of 1972 and the 1977 Amendments to the Georgia Water Quality Control Act, these statutes require non-agricultural water users withdrawing more than 100,000 gallons per day from the State's ground or surface waters to first obtain a permit from EPD. Uses ongoing when the respective laws were enacted were permitted for the quantities in use at the time. However, expansion of existing permits and new permits, particularly for surface water sources, impose requirements on the permittee to protect the water resource while making beneficial use of the State's waters. For surface water sources, new or expanded withdrawals may not reduce the flow in a stream below the 7QlO flow at the withdrawal point. The "7QlO" is the average lowest flow over a seven-day period that will occur on the average of once every ten years. The 7QlO is accepted by the State as the minimum flow necessary for maintaining fisheries and for water quality protection. State regulations require Georgia's water pollution control facilities to be designed and operated so that the State's water quality standards are met at all stream flows equal to or greater than the 7QlO. .:; Hundreds of industrial and municipal water pollution control plants worth .~ well over a billion dollars have been constructed in Georgia on the basis of meeting water quality standards when stream flows equal or exceed the 7QlO. The practical effect of requiring passage of the 7QlO flow is that some sort of water storage must be provided to maintain a water user's source reliability during drought periods (such as 1986). Since most communities expect 100% source reliability, reservoir development is the principal means of providing storage "to assure that reliability while also allowing the 7QlO flow to pass. Communities and industries with substantial raw water storage were able to meet their water demands with minimal problems during the drought of 1986. The passage of a minimum flow (such as 7QlO) helps to assure that a given water withdrawal does not have unreasonable adverse effects on downstream water users, as well as protecting the fishery and water quality of the source stream. -2- To ensure that water is used efficiently and that emergency situations can be handled in an orderly fashion, permitted withdrawers are now being required to develop water conservation plans as a condition of their withdrawal permits. Water conservation plans generally have two main objectives: reduction of routine water demand ahd managing water supply emergencies. Reduction of routine water demand involves day-to-day efforts to conserve water, such as recycling backwash water at treatment plants, leak detection programs and metering all connections. Drought contingency planning deals with the process of reducing water demand through a series of increasing restrictions on water use by municipal and industrial users. Establishing water use priorities in advance is essential for various water users to cope with difficult drought situations. Out of 150 larger surface water supply systems, 120 have water conservation plans, and 130 have drougp.t contingency plans. Ground-water systems were first required to develop water conservation plans in mid-1986. Of the 350 major systems, 100 have water conservation plans, and 240 have drought contingency plans. Systems without plans are preparing them now, and they should be complete by early 1987. .~ Water conservation is also promoted through the use of water-saving plumb- ing fixtures. Since 1978, Georgia law has required newly constructed and rehabilitated buildings to use water-saving showerheads, toilets, and faucets to help reduce routine water demand. Substantial reductions in per-home water use have been achieved since enactment of this law, which is also incorporated into the Georgia Building Code. The water withdrawal permitting process does not include, except for reporting purposes, the withdrawal of water for agricultural uses. This is a significant factor in the water resources management strategy which needs to be addressed. In 1972, when the Groundwater Use Act was passed, agriculture accounted for less than 5% of total statewide water usage. Therefore, agriculture was exempted from the Act. However, the recent widespread use of center pivot irrigation systems has increased the agricultural usage to more than 33% of the total. Statewide this usage has resulted in significant declines in the levels of major aquifers in South Georgia. In 1977. the surface water withdrawal amendments to the Georgia Water Quality Control Act also exempted agricultural usage. It was believed at that time that agriculture would not interfere with municipal water supply needs. However, the droughts of 1981 and 1986 demonstrated that these withdrawals competed with municipal withdrawals in some cases, such as on the Alcovy river above Covington and the Flint River near Lovejoy. In 1982, "the Geheral Assembly passed a bill requiring farmers to report estimated agricultural water usage. This bill has latgely been ignored by farmers and only a very limited amount of information has been reported. Many farmers are now recognizing the value and importance of being officially allocated a quantity of ground water to meet their needs. In addition, they realize the value of being able to obtain information from the State, based on correct water budget data, so they can make wiser decisions in locating and sizing future wells and irrigation equipment. It is anticipated "-3- ," , I ) that the farming community will soon encourage amendments to the water ;.~.; allocation laws to allow them to receive allocations and become a part of ~-~ the State's water management strategy. 1'1 Public Water System Supervision Program The purpose of the Public Water System Supervision Program is to assure a high and safe quality of drinking water to the public. This program is managed by the Environmental Protection Division. The legal basis of the program is the Georgia Safe Drinking Water Act of 1977 and the Rules and Regulations for Safe Drinking Water promulgated pursuant to the Act. There are 2740 public drinking water systems in Georgia. To insure that the public water systems are operated in accordance with the Rules, EPD maintains a comprehensive regulatory program. Certain aspects of public water system management are closely related to the water resources of each community. For instance, each major public water system is required to receive a permit from EPD prior to operation. The permit is renewable every ten years and sets forth the operational and monitoring requirements necessary to insure the delivery of safe water. EPD also reviews and approves engineering plans and specifications for wells, water treatment plants, and water distribution systems prior to construction. By overseeing not only water withdrawals but water systems and wastewater facilities as well, EPD is working with our local communities to provide adequate water sources, treatment and distribution,and pollution control. It is through this program that EPD determines if a community's water treatment and distribution system capacity is adequate for existing and future needs. Emergency Water Shortage Plan The Georgia Water Quality Control Act and the Rules and Regulations for Water Quality Control authorize the Director of the Environmental Protection .1 Division to issue emergency orders to protect the health and safety of water supplies during emergency water shortage periods. The emergency water shortage plan is a means of managing resources to provide water for essential purposes while helping maintain some water for downstream uses during critical drought periods. Since the demands on Georgia's water resources are significantly stressed during severe drought conditions, the protection of water supplies will be insured by institution of the water conservation plans required through the withdrawal permit process. The extent of water conservation measures and the actions taken by EPD depend upon the degree of the drought and the specific conditions affecting each local government. The emergency water shortage plan consists of the following water steps to be implemented during emergency or drought periods: Step I. Enforced Outside Water Use Restrictions EPD will request or, if necessary order, a community to restrict outdoor water use to certain days or hours for all users. This will occur if a community "'4- exceeds 90% of its permitted water withdrawal amount or maximum safe production level for one day, if low pressure (less than 20 PSI) or loss of service is experienced, or if the stream flow below the water withdrawal is less than 1. 2 times the stream's 7 day-IO year minimum (7QlO) flow. In addit ion to outdoor watering restrictions, other water conservation measures specific to a community may be adopted by the community or ordered by EPD. Step II. Enforced Outside Water Use Bans EPD will issue an emergency order to a community (unless the community voluntarily adopts the ban) stopping all outdoor use of water including lawn and garden watering and car washing. Businesses using high volumes of water such as car washes and nurseries may be put on significant reductions. This step will be implemented if Step I measures are not effective and if a community exceeds its permitted water withdrawal amount or maximum safe production level for one day, if low pressure (less than 20 PSI) or loss of service is experienced, or if the stream flow below the water intake is less than 0.5 times the stream's 7QlO flow. Step III. Water Use Ban For Non-Essential Purposes EPD will issue an emergency order to a community (unless the community voluntarily adopts the rationing) rationing the use of water to essential purposes only. Essential services are health care, sanitation and cooking needs. Commercial and industrial uses will be restricted and outdoor water I j use will be banned. This will be implemented if Step II procedures fail to prevent loss of service or if extreme low stream flow conditions persist severely limiting the amount of water available . I ".,I The drought of 1986 tested the emergency water shortage plan. The Environmental Protection Division notified 103 communities using surface water "' and 350 using ground-water to restrict outdoor water usage (Step I). Of these, 29 communities adopted total outdoor water use bans (Step II). Fortunately, only 5 communities needed to ration water (Step III) by reducing industrial water usage. During the drought, the Division provided technical assistance to locate supplemental water sources for 17 communities and awarded $250,300 in emergency grant funds to install the necessary facilities (wells, pumps, piping) to use these sources. The 1986 drought confirmed the information in the Water Availability and Use Reports pertaining to water systems which were shown to have unreliable sources. The drough~ also served not only to identify streams with conflicts over the water usage (agriculture irrigat ion versus municipal drinking water) but also to emphasize the need for storage reservoirs capable of providing water during drought periods. State Water Budget Georgia's water budget is compiled in a series of reports on Water Availability and Use by river basin for the State. The Water Availability and Use Reports have been under preparation since 1982 and are now complete. As drafts of the reports have been completed, they have been distributed for public review and comment in the various river basins in the State. -5- The Water Availability and Use Reports have developed for the first time a comprehensive inventory of the State's water resources and uses made of those water resources, both from surface water and ground water. They provide the data base necessary for informed permitting decisions that help to meet the State's water demands while protecting the natural resource base. By dividing each river basin into hydrologic units possessing similar characteristics, the Water Availability and Use Reports produce an accounting, or budget, of water naturally available at various points in a river basin, and the uses made of that water. Proceeding from the headwaters toward the mouth of each major river, the reports list significant withdrawals of water from the basin and discharges back to the basin's streams. By summing the net effects of withdrawals against discharges and considering natural runoff contributions in each hydrologic unit, the amounts of water available for use are identified for both average and drought conditions. Using a technique developed by EPD staff, a measure of reliability for each surface water user called the Level-Of-Service Index (LOSI) is computed. The LOSI gives a convenient estimation of a given water system's current ability to meet drought demands. A major function of the Water Availability and Use Reports is to identify areas in each river basin where water resources problems or conflicts occur, as well as where water supplies are plentiful. By projecting future population trends and their resultant water demands, the reports can identify areas of future water resource concern. It should be pointed out, however, that water resource capabilities are only one component of a water system, dealing with the adequacy of water supply sources. Another major concern, especially in areas of high growth, is the adequacy of water treatment and distribution capacities in the community's water system. Effective delivery of water to consumers can be jeopardized by inadequate source, withdrawal, treatment or distribution capacity. The Water Availability and Use Reports are too lengthy (50-100 pages I each) for inclusion in this document. Instead, summary information is presented in the following tables and discussions. ,I Figure I is a map of the river basins of Georgia. It is followed by Table I which presents the basinwide data for each basin indicating the size of the basin, the overall availability of water and the overall withdrawal of water, including industrial water use. A brief discussion of the highlights of each basin report is contained in Appendix A. Tables II and III are the heart of Georgia I s water budget. For both '1 ground-water and surface water systems, each major municipal and county water system is listed along with its current permitted withdrawal amount and an assessment of its ability to meet current and future water supply needs, in terms of the adequacy of the supply, the treatment plant and the distribution system. The communities listed in Tables II and III which have a "No" in any column, or which have a "Yes" in the "Need Reservoir" column should start planning and/or implementing actions to strengthen their water source or system, if they have not already done so. EPD has already initiated planning for many systems as discussed later in this summary document. EPD also maintains a similiar inventory of permitted industrial water -6- d withdrawals; however, for the purposes of this document, industrial projections :~'(. /. ? are not included, since they are not available for each specific industry site. Currently, the supply for industrial withdrawals is adequate. If an industry needs to increase its withdrawal for expansion or process changes, EPD works with the industry to determine the amount of water available at its site. Geor,gia's -water budget indicates that most of south Georgia (below the Fall Line) has an abundant supply of ground-water sufficient to meet both current and future needs, if it is properly managed. To do so, the withdrawal of water for agricultural uses must be included in the water permitting and allocation program. The ground-water in certain areas of Chatham County and Glynn County needs to be protected from further drawdown. The Environmental Protection Division has adopted ground-water management plans for both counties which promote water conservation; ban the installation of new wells (or increased withdrawals from existing wells) in the critical areas of Savannah and I :JI ~;~ Brunswick; and provide for limited new-wells in the outlying areas of Chatham and Glynn Counties. In addition, EPD is working with the United States Geologic Survey to develop a computer model of coastal Georgia to determine the optimal locations for wells to meet the future water needs of coastal Georgia. North Georgia, north of the Fall Line, relies primarily on surface water to meet its water supply needs. Georgia I s water budget and the 1986 drought demonstrated that the surface water sources for many communities are insufficient to meet current and future needs. To correct this deficiency, the Environmental Protection Division is recommending a system of water supply lakes which can also serve as public fishing lakes for north Georgia. Some major lakes are already in use (Lanier, Allatoona, West Point, Oconee, Clark's Hill, Hartwell). Smaller ones are still in the planning stages as discussed later in this summary document. Also, EPD has participated with the Corps of Engineers, APDC' s and local governments to develop areawide water supply plans for Metropolitan Atlanta, several counties south of Metropolitan Atlanta and several counties in Northeast Georgia. -7- SUWANNEE --t..-_ OCH- LOCKONEE ~_._-- -_.....J RIVER BASINS in GEORGIA -8- ----- _ ~_ - :>. ". ,- ~i:" .;.:_h,::~~~' ~ ~~~~::.~:" ~ " _:- - '- -'-'--~~----~~ ~~ ~.it lJ:~ !'"l\"';-~:-'.. River Basin Savannah Altamaha I Chattahoochee \0 I Flint Tallapoosa Oconee Ocmulgee Table I WATER AVAILABILITY AND USE REPORTS SUMMARY DATA (Includes Industrial Water Use) Drainage Area (S~I) 6200 1 Average Flow at the Mouth (MGD) 8500 Range of Average Annual Rainfall (Inches) 40-80 2870 9200 44-52 8770 7890 48-64 8460 6300 650 1 640 48-52 45-55 5320 3900 44-52 6080 4300 46-50 Permitted Surface Water Withdrawals (MGD) 270 72 2147 297 10 66 424 Permitted Ground Water Withdrawals (MGD) 130 91 2.6 75 - 77 88 Numbers of Permitted Facilities with capacities of at least 0.10 MGD 38 surface water withdrawals 60 ground water withdrawals 58 discharges 1 surface water withdrawal 14 ground water withdrawals 15 discharges 40 surface water withdrawals 12 ground water withdrawals 54 discharges 15 surface water withdrawals 40 ground water withdrawals 68 discharges 7 surface water withdrawals o ground water withdrawals 9 discharges 23 surface water withdrawals 39 ground water withdrawals 41 discharges 20 surface water withdrawals 39 ground water withdrawals 35 discharges Table II I1UNICIPAL PERKITTED GROUND WATER WITHDRAWALS - BY COUNTY I coom FACILITY SOURCE AQUIFER 110 AVG (IIGDl PRES PRES 2000 2000 SUPPL CAPAC SUPPL CAPAC ADEll? ADEQ? ADEQ? ADEQ? APPLING CITY OF BAILEY FLORIDAN 0.850 YES YES YES YES ATKINSON ATKINSON CITY OF PEARSON CITY OF WILLACOOCHEE FLORIDAN FLORIDAN 0.200 0.150 .. __ .... -- 0.350 YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES BACON AUlA, CITY OF FLORIDAN 0.900 YES YES YES YES BARTOW CITY OF WHITE PALEOZOIC LS 0.100 YES YES NO NO BEN HILL FITZGERALD WATER, LIGHT FLORIDAN 3. 750 YES YES YES YES BERRIEN CITY OF NASHVILLE FLORIDAN 0.435 YES YES YES YES BIBB HACON-BIBB CO. WATER' SEW CRETACEOUS SAND 0.360 YES YES YES YES BLECKLEY CITY OF COCHRAN FLORIDAN 1.000 YES YES YES YES BRANTlEf CITY OF NAHUNTA FLORIDAN 0.150 YES YES YES YES BROOKS CITY OF QUIT"AN FLORIDAN 1.500 YES YES YES YES BRYAN CITY OF PE"BROKE FLORIDAN CITY OF RICHIIOND HILL FLORIDAN BRYAN 0.250 0.650 -------- 0.900 YES YES YES YES YES YES YES NO BULLOCH BULLOCH CITY OF STATESBORO TOWN OF BROOKLET FLORIDAN FUlRIDAN 3.218 0.140 -------- 3.358 YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES BURKE CITY OF SARDIS CITY OF WAYNESBORO BURKE FLORIDAN CRETACEOUS SAND 0.150 1. 320 -------- 1.470 YES YES YES YES YES YES YES NO CALHOUN CALHOUN CITY OF ARLINGTON CITY OF EDISON cln OF LEARY FLORIDAN CLAYTON CLAIB. TALLAHATTA 0.350 0.300 0.100 -------- 0.750 YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES CAI1DEN CITY OF KINGSLAND CITY OF ST. IIARYS CITY OF WOODBINE FLORIDAN FLORIDAN FLORIDAN 0.800 YES YES YES NO 0.500 YES YES YES YES 0.130 YES YES YES YES * Indicates maximum day, rather than-monthly average, withdrawal. -11- IruNICIPAL PEIUlITTED GROUND WATER WITHDRAWALS - BY COUNTY COUNTY FACILITY SOURCE AQUIFER 110 AVG (PlGD) PRES PRES 2000 2000 SUPPL CAPAC SUPPL CAPAC ADEQ? ADEQ? ADEQ? ADEQ? CAIlDEH CAPIDEH KINGS BAY NAVAL SUBKARINE B FLORIDAN 1.250 -------- 2.680 YES YES YES YES CANDLER CITY OF !lETTER FLORIDAN 0.500 I YES YES YES YES CHARLTON CITY OF FOLKSTON FLORIDAN 0.800 YES YES YES YES CHATHAfl CHATHA" CO. - GLEN OF ROBIN FLORIDAN 0.640 YES YES YES YES CITY OF BLOO"INGDALE FLORIDAN 0.156 YES YES YES YES CITY OF GARDEN CITY FLORIDAN 1.250 YES YES YES YES CITY OF PORT WENTWORTH FLORIDAN 0.500 YES YES YES YES CITY OF SAVANNAH FLORIDAN 30.000 YES YES YES NO CITY OF SAVANNAH (GEORGETOW FLORIDAN 0.275 I YES YES YES YES ~ ; CITY OF SAVANNAH (WHITEIlARS FLORIDAN CITY OF SAVANNAH-CHATHAIlPW FLORIDAN 0.129 1.440 I YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES ;' CITY OF SAVANNAH-WILMINGTON FLORIDAN 2.000 YES YES YES YES CITY OF TYBEE ISLAND FLORIDAN 1.000 I YES YES YES YES HUNTER AIUIY AIRF IELD FLORIDAN,OLIGOCENE 0.700 YES YES YES YES TOWN OF POOLER FLORIDAN 0.425 YES YES YES YES TOWN OF THUNDERBOLT FLORIDAN 0.400 YES YES YES YES -------- CHATHAM 38.915 CHATTAHOOCHEE CITY OF CUSSETA CRETACEOUS SAND 0.310 YES YES YES NO CHATTOOGA CHATTOOGA COUNTY WATER DIST PALEOZOIC LIIlE STONE 0.450 YES YES YES YES CHEROKEE CITY OF BALL GROUND CRYSTALLINE ROCK 0.150 I YES YES NO NO CLAY CITY OF FORT GAINES PROVIDENCE SAND 0.310 YES YES YES YES CLAYTON CITY OF JONESBORO CRYSTALLINE ROCK 0.150 NO NO NO NO CLINCH CITY OF HOIlERVILLE FLORIDAN 0.500 YES YES YES YES ,J COFFEE CITY OF BROXTON FLORIDAN 0.125 YES YES YES YES .".11. \! CITY OF DOUGLAS CITY OF NICHOLLS FLORIDAN FLORIDAN 4.800 YES YES YES YES 0.220 YES YES YES YES -------- COFFEE 5.145 COLQUITT COLQUITT CITY OF IIOULTRIE TOWN OF NGRIIAN PARK TOWN OF RIVERSIDE FLORIDAN UPPER PAA FLORIDAN 3.700 0.109 I 0.350 -------- 4.159 YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES * Indicates maximum day, rather than monthly average, withdrawal. -12- KUNICIPAL PERMITTED GROUND WATER WITHDRAWALS - BT COUNTT ; ;j COUNTY FACILITY ~ ~ ~l SOURCE AQUIFER 110 AVe (I1GD) PRES PRES 2000 2000 SUPPL CAPAC SUPPL CAPAC ADEQ? ADEQ? ADEQ? ADEQ? COLUI1BIA COLUIIBIA CITY OF GROVETOWN CRYSTALLINE ROCK 0.900 NO NO NO NO CITY OF HARLE/1 CRYSTALLINE ROCK 0.280 NO NO NO NO COLUI1BJA COUNTY WATER DEPAR CRYSTALLINE ROCK 0.875 NO NO NO NO ... _------ 2.055 COOK CITY OF ADEL FLORIDAN 4.312 YES YES YES YES COWETA CITY OF GRANTVILLE CRYSTALLINE ROCK 0.200 YES YES NO NO CRAIIFORD CITY OF ROBERTA CRETACEOUS SAND 0.240 YES YES NO NO CRISP CITY OF CORDELE FLOR.TALLA,CLAYTON 3.600 YES YES YES YES .1 ~'. DECATUR DODGE CITY OF BAINBRIDGE CITY OF EASTIIAN FLORIDAN FLORIDAN 3.000 YES YES YES YES 1.400 YES YES YES YES DOOLY DOOLY DOUGHERTY DOUGHERTY CITY OF UNADILLA CITY OF VIENNA TALLAHATTA UPPER PAA 0.500 0.700 -------- 1.200 CITY OF ALBANY WTR.,GAS &L PR.,TAL.,CLAY.,FL. 31.500 DEPT. OF DEFENSE, USMC TAL,WILC,CLAY,U.CRET 2.200 .. ------- 33. 700 YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES NO YES YES YES YES EARLY CI TY OF BLAKELY CLAYTON 1. 200 YES YES YES YES EFFINGHAI1 CITY OF GUYTON FLORIDAN 0.120 YES YES YES YES CITY OF SPRINGFIELD WATER & FLORIDAN 0.300 YES YES YES NO TOWN OF RINCON FLORIDAN 0.250 YES YES YES YES -------- EFFINGHAM 0.670 :1. '}i I EllANUEL CITY OF SWAINSBORO OLIG.,BARN.LIS,TALL 1.800 YES YES YES YES EVANS CITY OF CLAlTON PRINCIPAL ARTESIAN 0.386 YES YES YES YES FLOYD FLOYD COUNTY KNOX GROUP 1.300 YES YES YES NO FRANKLIN CITY OF FRANKLIN SPRINGS CRYSTALLINE ROCK 0.125 YES YES NO NO GLYNN CITY OF BRUNSWICK - CITY SY FLORIDAN CITY OF BRUNSWICK-GLYNCO FLORIDAN CITY OF BRUNSWICK. 195 &34 FLORIDAN 6.700 0.300 0.300 YES YES YES NO YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES * Indicates maximum day, rather than monthly average, withdrawal. -13- KUNICIPAL PERftITTED GROUND WATER WITHDRAWALS - BY COUNTT ~J COUNTY FACILITY ~ ~ SOURCE AQUIFER itO AVG ,, -------- "'I ) WARE 5. 760 WASHINGTON WASHINGTON CITY OF SANDERSVILLE CITY OF TENNILLE CRETACEOUS SAND CRETACEOUS SAND 2.218 0.248 -------- 2.466 YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES WAYNE CITY OF JESUP CITY OF SCREVEN IIAYNE FLORIDAN FLORIDAN 2.000 0.125 f -------- 2.125 YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES WHITE CITY OF HELEN CRYSTALLINE ROCK 0.225 YES YES NO NO WILKINSON WILKINSON CITY OF GORDON TOWN OF IRWINTON TOWN OF I1C INTYRE CRETACEOUS SAND CRETACEOUS SAND CRETACEOUS SAND 0.400 0.100 ---0--.2-2-0- O. 720 YES YES YES NO YES YES YES NO YES YES YES YES WORTH CITY OF SYLVESTER FLORIDAN 1.300 YES YES YES YES "J -------- ,., 270.805 * Indicates maximum day, rather than monthly average, withdrawal. -18- Table III I'I i:~ COUNTY .! I1UNICIPAL PERMITTED SURFACE WATER WITHDRAWALS - BY COUNTY FACILITY SOURCE STREAI1 110 AVG (KGI)) PRES PRES 2000 2000 HEED SUPPL CAPAC SUPPL CAPAC lIS ADEQ? ADEQ? ADEQ? ADEQ? RES? BALDWIN CENTRAL STATE HOSPITAL I1ILLEDGEVILLE, CITY OF OCONEE RIVER OCONEE RIVER 2.50 YES YES YES YES NO 7.00 YES YES YES YES NO BALDI/IN 9.50 BANKS GEORGIA INDUSTRIAL INSTITUT LITTLE HUDSON CREEK 0.22 YES YES NO NO YES BARROW WINDER, CITY OF - CEDAR CEDAR CREEK RES. WINDER, CITY OF - KULBERRY I1ULBERRY RIVER 0.80 NO YES NO NO YES 1.80 YES YES YES NO YES ., BARROW I .J:, BARTOW BARTOli COUNTY IIATER SYSTEI1 BOLIVAR SPRINGS (J CARTERSVILLE WATER 'DEPT LAKE ALLATOONA ~1 I EnERSON, CITY OF 110SS SPRINGS .I BARTOW 2.60 0.15 NO YES NO YES YES 6.50 YES YES YES YES NO 0.30 NO NO NO NO YES 6.95 BIBB I1ACON-BIBB COUNTY IIATER ~ S OCMULGEE RIVER 35.00 YES YES NO lID YES I BURKE J BUTTS WAYNESBORO, CITY OF BRIAR CREEK JACKSON, CITY OF . TOI/ALIGA TOIIALIGA RIVER JACKSON, CITY OF - YELLOW II YELLOW WATER CREEK 1.00 YES YES YES YES NO 1.00 NO NO NO NO YES 0.50 NO NO NO NO YES .,I BUTTS 1.50 CARROLL BOIIDON, CITY OF . INDIAN INDIAN CREEl< 0.36 NO YES NO YES NO BOWDON, CITY OF - LAKE TYSI LAKE TYS IHGER 0.70 YES YES YES YES NO CARROLLTON, CITY OF LT. TALLAPOOSA RIVER 6.00 YES YES NO NO YES TEI1PLE, CITY OF WEBSTER CREEK 0.17 NO YES NO YES YES VILLA RICA, CITY OF LAKE PARADISE 1.00 YES YES NO NO YES ~ CARROLL ~, CATOOSA RINGGOLD, CITY OF S CHICKAMAUGA CR 8.23 1.00 YES YES YES YES NO CHATTAHOOCHEE FT BENNING I/ATER TREATI1ENT UPATOI RIVER 10.00 YES YES YES YES NO GHATTOOGA SUPVIERVILLE, CITY OF RACCOON CREEK 2.50 YES YES NO NO YES CHEROKEE CANTON, CITY OF ETOWAH RIVER CHEROKEE COUNTY WATER ~ SEll ETOWAH RIVER 2.50 YES YES NO NO YES 3.66 YES YES NO NO YES CHEROKEE 6.16 CLARKE ATHENS, CITY OF - MIDDLE ATHENS, CITY OF . NORTH I1IDDLE OCONEE RIVER NORTH OCONEE RIVER 12.00 YES YES NO YES YES 16.00 YES YES NO YES YES CLARKE 28.00 -19- KUNICIPAL PERMITTED SURFACE WATER WITHDRAWALS - BY COUNTY COUNTY FACILITY SOURCE STREAM MO AVG (MGD) PRES PRES 2000 2000 NEED SUPPL CAPAC SUPPL CAPAC YS ADEQ? ADEQ? ADEQ? ADEQ? RES? CLAYTON CLAYTON COUNTY WATER AUTH FLINT RIVER 6.00 YES YES NO NO YES CLAYTON COUNTY WATER AUTH SHOAL CREEK 5.00 NO YES NO NO YES CLAYTON COUNTY WATER AUTHOR LITTLE COTTON INDIAN CR 18.00 YES YES NO NO YES CLAYTON 29.00 COBB COBB CO - KARIETTA WATER AU LAKE ALLATOONA 35.00 YES YES YES NO NO COBB CO - MARIETTA WATER AU CHATTAHOOCHEE RIVER 48.00 YES YES NO NO YES COBB 83.00 COLIJPIBIA COLUKBIA COUNTY WATER &SEW STEVENS CREEK RESERVOIR 4.00 YES NO YES NO NO COWETA COWETA COUNTY COMM WAHOO CREEK NEWNAN WATER SUPPLY &LIGHT LINE CR &WHITE OAK CR SENOIA, CITY OF HUTCHINS LAKE 0.65 NO NO NO NO YES 7.50 YES YES NO NO YES 0.30 YES YES NO NO YES COl/ETA I DADE 1 " I DAWSON DADE CO WATER &SEWER AUTH LOOKOUT CREEK ETOWAH \lATER ~ SEWER AUTH ETOIIAH RIVER 1 DOUGLAS DOUGLASVILLE - DOUGLAS CO ANNEEWAKEE CREEK \ DOUGLASVILLE - DOUGLAS CO BEAR CREEK I DOUGLASVILLE - DOUGLAS CO DOG RIVER DOUGLASVILLE - DOUGLAS CO L. ANNEEWAKEE CR EAST POINT, CITY OF SWEETWATER CREEK 8.45 1. 00 YES YES YES NO NO 0.23 YES YES YES YES lO 0.75 NO YES NO NO YES 4.00 NO YES NO NO YES 2.00 YES YES NO NO YES 0.74 NO YES NO NO YES 11.50 YES YES YES NO NO DOUGLAS 18.99 ELBERT ELBERTON, CITY OF BEAVERDAK/RUSSEL 1. 70 NO YES YES YES NO FANNIN i;\ FANNIN j FAYETTE BLUE RIDGE, CITY OF MC CAYSVILLE, CITY OF TOCCOA RIVER TOCCOA RIVER FAYETTE COUNTY WATER SYSTEM LAKE PEACHTREE FAYETTE COUNTY WATER SYSTEM FLAT CREEK RESERVOIR FAYETTEVILLE, CITY OF - GIN GINGER CAKE CREEK 1.00 YES YES YES YES NO 0.29 YES YES YES YES NO 1.29 0.50 NO NO NO NO YES 3.00 YES YES NO NO YES 0.15 NO NO NO NO YES FAYETTE 3.65 FLOYD ROME, CITY OF OOSTANAULA ~ ETOWAH R 12.00 YES YES YES YES NO FORSYTH CUMMING, CITY OF LAKE SIDNEY LANIER 4.00 YES NO YES NO NO FRANKLIN LAVONIA, CITY OF ROYSTON, CITY OF CRAWFORD CREEK NFORK OF BROAD RIVER 0.50 NO YES NO YES YES 0.40 YES YES YES YES NO FRANKLIN 0.90 -20- -21- I1UNICIPAL PERMITTED SURFACE WATER WITHDRAWALS - BY COUNTY COUNTY FACILITY :;1 1 :j ;1 SOURCE STREA" 110 AVG (IlGD) PRES PRES 2000 2000 NEED SUPPL CAPAC SUPPL CAPAC lIS ADEQ? ADEQ? ADEQ? ADEQ? RES? HEARD FRANKLIN/HEARD CO WATER AUT CENTRALHATCHEE CREEK 0.30 YES NO NO NO YES HENRY HENRY COUNTY - INDIAN CR INDIAN CREEK 2.00 YES YES NO NO YES HENRY COUNTY - TOWALIGA R TOWALIGA RIVER 2.80 YES YES NO NO YES ~DONOUGH, CITY OF WALNUT CREEK RESERVO IR 2.40 YES YES YES NO 1:10 HENRY 7.20 JACKSON COKKERCE, CITY OF JEFFERSON, CITY OF GROVE CREEK BIG CURRY CREEK 1. 70 YES YES NO YES YES 1. 75 YES YES NO YES YES JACKSON 3.45 JASPER 110NT ICELLO, CITY OF - POPE POPE'S BRANCH .., ..~ LAI1AR .~ BARNESVILLE, CITY OF - BIG BIG TOWALIGIA CREEK BARNESVILLE, CITY OF - EDIE OlE CREEK 0.50 NO YES NO NO YES 0.50 NO YES NO NO YES 2.50 NO YES NO NO YES LAMAR 3.00 LAURENS DUBLIN, CITY OF OCONEE RIVER 3.00 YES YES YES NO NO LINCOLN LINCOLNTON, CITY OF CLARKS HILL RESERVOli 0.20 YES YES YES YES NO 1 ,I I..Uf1PKIN DAHLONEGA, CITY OF - NEW PI.. YAHOOLA CREEK DAHLONEGA, CITY OF - OLD PI.. YAHOOLA CREEK LUI'iPKIN 0.75 YES NO NO NO YES 0.50 YES NO 110 NO YES 1.25 ~UFFIE TH0l1S0N WATER DEPARTMENT USRY'S LAKE 1.40 NO YES NO NO YES 'I 1 I1ER IWETHER GREENVILLE, CITY OF I1ANCHESTER, CITY OF WOODBURY, CITY OF TOWN CREEK PIGEON CREEK CAIN CR RES ON POND CR 0.15 NO NO NO NO YES 0.75 NO YES NO NO YE~ 0.50 YES YES YES YES 00 !:1 I1ER IWETHER :.~ MONROE FORSYTH, CITY OF - ROCKY ROCKY CREEK FORSYTH, CITY OF - TOBESOF TOBESOFKEE CREEK 1.40 1.20 NO YES NO YES YES 0.20 YES NO NO NO YES 110NROE 1.40 MORGAN I1ADISON, CITY OF - HARD LAB HARD LABOR CREEK 0.80 YES YES NO NO YES I1URRAY CHATSWORTH WATER WORKS CO"" ETOII SPRINGS CHATSWORTH WATER WORKS COK/1 HOLLY CREEK 0.80 YES YES NO NO YES 1.00 YES YES NO NO YES I1URRAY 1.80 HUSCOGEE COLUI1BUS, CITY OF LAKE OLIVER 45.00 YES YES YES YES NO -22- HUNICIPAL PERMITTED SURFACE WATER WITHDRAWALS - BY COUNTY COUNTY FACILITY ~ IIUSCOGEE SIIITH WATER AUTH SOURCE STREAH CHATTAHOOCHEE RIVER HO AVG ",GO I 1.00 PRES PRES 2000 2000 NEED SUPPL CAPAC SUPPL CAPAC WS ADEQ? ADEQ? ADEQ? ADEQ? RES? YES YES JlO IIUSCOGEE 46.00 N1JTON COVINGTON, CITY OF PORTERDALE, CITY OF ALCOVY RIVER YELLOII RIVER 4.00 NO YES NO NO YES 0.90 YES YES NO NO YES NEilTON 4.90 OCONEE OCONEE COUNTY UTILITIES AUT CALL'S CREEK 0.14 NO NO NO NO YES OGLETHORPE CRAIIFORD, CITY OF LONG CRm 0.15 NO YES NO YES YES PICKENS JASPER, CITY OF LONG SIIAJlP CREEK 0.80 YES NO NO NO YES PIKE U 'I 'I POLK '1 PUTNAII ZEBULON, CITY OF ROCKIIART, CITY OF EATONTON, CITY OF ELKINS CREEK EUHARLEE CREEK LITTLE RIVER 0.30 NO YES NO YES YES 1. 50 YES YES NO YES YES 1.00 YES YES YES NO NO RABUN CLAYTON, CITY OF BLACK'S CREEK 0.70 NO YES NO NO YES RICHIIOND AUGUSTA, CITY OF AUGUSTA CANAL FORT GORDON - BUTLER CREEK BUTLER CREEK 30.00 YES YES YES YES NO 3.00 NO YES NO YES NO RICHIIOND 33.00 ROCKDALE CONYERS, CITY OF YELLOII RIVER 1.60 YES NO NO NO YES SPALDING GRIFFIN, CITY OF FLINT RIVER 8.00 YES YES NO NO YES STEPHENS TOCCOA, CITY OF - LAKE TOCC LAKE TOCCOA 4.00 YES YES YES YES NO TROUP ;:j .:,11J : TROUP ':1 UlIOH HOGANSVILLE, CITY OF LAGRANGE, CITY OF WEST POINT, CITY OF BLAIRSVILLE, CITY OF FLAT CREEK WEST POINT LAKE CHATTAHOOCHEE RIVER NOTTEL'Y RIVER 0.39 YES YES NO NO YES 12.00 YES NO YES NO NO 1.80 YES YES YES YES NO 14.19 0.50 YES YES NO NO YES UPSON THOHASTON, CITY OF POTATO CREEK 3.00 YES YES YES NO NO WALKER CHICKAHAUGA, CITY OF CRAWFISH SPRING LAKE LA FAYETTE, CITY OF - DRY C DRY CRm LA FAYETTE, CITY OF- 81G BIG SPRING WALKER CO WATER &SEWERAGE CRAWFISH SPRING LAKE 1. 00 YES NO NO NO YES 0.50 NO NO NO NO YES 1.31 NO NO NO NO YES 1. 43 YES YES NO NO YES WALKER 4.24 -23- "UNICIPAL PER'UTTED SURFACE WATER WITHDRAWALS - BY COUNTY ~ COUNTY FACILITY SOURCE STREA" WALTON ftDNROE WATER LIGHT &GAS CO ALCOVT RIVER SOCIAL CIRCLE, CITY OF ALCOVY RIVER "0 AVG ll1GDl 3.00 0.50 PRES PRES 2000 2000 NEED SUPPL CAPAC SUPPL CAPAC liS ADEQ7 ADEQ7 ADEQ7 ADEQ7 RES? YES YES NO YES YES YES YES NO YES YES WALTON 3.50 WARREN WARRENTON, C1TY OF ROCKY COftFORT CREEK 0.15 NO YES NO YES YES WHITE CLEVELAND, CITY OF TURNER CREEK 0.40 YES YES NO YES YES WltITFIELD DALTON UTILITIES - COAHULLA COAHULLA CREEK DALTON UTILITIES - CONASAUG CONASAUGA RIVER DALTON UTILITIES - "ILL CR 11ILL CREEK 5.00 YES YES NO NO YES 33.00 YES YES NO NO YS 1.50 YES YES NO NO YES :j WHITFIELD :'1 45.50 :i WILKES WASHINGTON, CITY OF - CLARK CLARKS HILL RESERVOIR 1.50 YES YES YES NO NO WASHINGTON, CITY OF - OLD P LITTLE BEAVERDA" CR 1.80 NO YES NO NO NO .\I WILKES 3.30 ------886.04 '.. .,~ " '1 I -24- III. Public Water Supply and Fishing Lakes ,,'j ~ The completion of the water budget has demonstrated the need to enhance ;J., Georgia's water resources. In fact, as growth occurs in Georgia, more demands are placed on the State's limited water resources. The 1986 drought served as a forerunner of what could become a commonplace situation in north Georgia: water use restrictions, closing of nonessential water-using businesses, and possible industrial curtailments or shutdowns. To avoid such adverse effects in the future and to continue to attract quality growth in Georgia, a network of public water supply and fishing lakes is needed to provide water supply storage and to enhance fishing in North Georgia. What is meant by "Public Water Supply and Fishing Lakes"? The concept includes the planning and development of water supply reservoirs to serve areas ranging from one county to several count ies. However, the main focus of the State's efforts will be to develop water supply and fishing reservoirs far smaller than the large, multipurpose Corps of Engineers reservoirs in our state. This reduces both the cost of constructing the facilities and the environmental impacts associated with such development. Thus the public water supply and fishing lakes concept allows considerable flexibility in project scope, to deal with various circumstances .. blic ater supply and fishing lakes will likely be dual-purpose water supply and fish and wildlife projects. The financial capabilities of single ulits f go ernment will prob b1y be ex eeded by some of the more substantial projects. In addition, good reservoir sites capable of serving a large area may be located in multiple jurisdictions. For these reasons, cooperation among several cities and counties to be benefited will be essential for the projects to go forward. The State will continue to urge local governments to cooperate in planning, constructing and operating public water supply and fishing lakes for their common benefit. Besides providing a water supply for drought periods, the public water supply and fishing lakes will enhance fishing opportunities throughout North Georgia. The Game and Fish Division of the Department of Natural Resources will assist the local governments in managing the lakes for fishing. This will include lake stocking and on-site technical advice and monitoring. Since the water quality of the lakes will be protected to insure good drinking water, the lakes will be ideal for fish and other wildlife, such as waterfowl. The fishing and wildlife assets of the lakes will not interfere with the water supply use. he Environmental Protection Division has initiated the planning for 8 u lie water supply and fishing lakes system. The planning, design and c stri.'ction of those lakes will require concerted efforts by EPD and local ver ... nts. Many facets such as funding, governmental cooperation, watershed pro tion, land acquisition, water treatment plants, and distribution systems will be the priorities of local governments. EPD will work with the Georgia Mu icipa1 Association and the Association of County Commissioners of Georgia and their APDC's to facilitate local governments' efforts in these areas. EPD priorities in planning for public water supply and fishing lakes are as follows: -25- 1. Based on information from the 1986 drought, from stream flow records and from Georgia's water budget, EPD has identified those communities needing access to either a public water supply and fishing lake or a local reservoir. 2. Working with local governments and APDC's, EPD will confirm the future water demands of the identified communities. 3. By examination of USGS maps, site inspections, and stream flow records, EPD will select potential lake sites. 4. EPD will evaluate the sites in terms of potential impacts such as cost, water quality, and trout stream protection and will identify the feasible lake locations. 5. EPD will use state-of-the-art water supply computer programs and stream flow records to calculate the size of the lakes needed to insure a reliable water supply for future growth. The final EPD planning product will consist of preliminary sites and sizes. 6. EPD will work with local governments providing technical guidance and reviews on the detailed design of the lake and dams. The local governments using their own technical staff or consultants, will perform the soil testing and other detailed work to finalize the preliminary site and size. 7. EPD will provide technical guidance, reviews and permitting for the withdrawals, water treatment plants, and water distribution systems associated with the public water supply and fishing lakes. The communities needing access to public water supply and fishing lakes or local reservoirs have been identified. The following map (Figure II) shows two initial groupings of reservoirs, those of multi-county scope and those that are local in scope, and Table IV identifies the community or communities each reservoir may serve. This initial identification of reservoirs is now being evaluated to determine optimal streams and service areas. A critical factor in the public water supply and fishing lakes concept is the protection of the watershed above each lake to insure that the water quality of the lake will be suitable for drinking. To accomplish this, EPD will expect the water source to be protected by implementation of effective land management measures adopted by local governments in accordance with the following guidelines: o adoption of a land use plan that will manage development consistent with protection of the water resource; o minimize discharge of wastewater plant effluents in the watershed above the reservoir; o control or elimination of discharges from shopping center parking lots, service stations, and other sources of heavy metals, toxics, and oils; -26- o effective erosion control ordinances; o prov~s~ons made for continual maintenance and surveillance of reservoir water quality after construction. Since watersheds cross political boundaries, it will be necessary for local governments to cooperate in adopting and enforcing land use controls. Clarification of appropriate roles for each level of government in watershed protection is needed. '.~ -27- POTENTIAL PUBLIC WATER SUPPLY LAKE SERVICE AREAS I .j ~. OICATVI 1HOM" "A LEGEND l~IMULTI-COUNTY WATER SUPPLY LAKES NEEDED ~ COUNTIES NEEDING LOCAL WATER SUPPLY LAKES -28- Table IV "i'~.1'~' POTENTIAL PARTICIPANTS IN WATER SUPPLY AND PUBLIC FISHING LAKES II Potential Reservoir (refer to map) Participants Areas Served 1 Barrow County, Statham, NE Georgia Auburn, Winder, Clarke Area County, Athens, Oconee County, Watkinsville, Jackson County, Commerce, Jefferson, Oglethorpe County, Lexington, Madison County, Danielsville 2 Newton County, Covington, Newton Newborn, Walton County, Walton .'."'j:. Monroe, Social Circle, Walnut Grove-Youth Water ';-i Authority " 3 Henry County, McDonough, South Metro Locust Grove, Spalding Area County, Griffin, Pike County, Zebulon, Meri- wether County, Greenville 4 Fayette County, Fayette- South Metro ville, Coweta County, Area Newnan 5 Macon-Bibb County Water Bibb and Sewer Authority, Gray, Jones Haddock Water Commission, Jones County Water System 6 City of Atlanta, Clayton Metro Atlanta '[ County, Cobb County, ':'jI'~ t"j Dekalb County, Douglas County, Fulton County, Gwinnett County d 7 Cherokee County Water & Cherokee Sewerage Authority, PicKens Canton, Jasper, Pickens County Water Authority 8 Butts County, Jackson, Butts Flovilla, Jasper County, Jasper Monticello 9 Lamar County, Barnesville, Lamar Milner, Monroe County, Monroe Forsyth -29- 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 " " Haralson County Water Authority, Bremen, Buchanan, Tallapoosa, Carroll County, Carrollton, Villa Rica, Temple, Paulding County Water Authority, Dallas Catoosa County, Ringgold, Walker County Water and Sewerage Authority, LaFayette, Kensington Water & Sewer Authority, Chickamauga Murray County, Chatsworth, Whitfield County, Dalton Banks County, Homer, Franklin County, Carnesville Taliaferro County, Crawfordville, Warren County, Warrenton Crawford County, Roberta, Taylor County, Butler Harris County Water Authority, Hamilton, Waverly Hall, Pine Mountain, Meriwether County, Manchester, Warm Springs, Talbot County Water System, Woodland, Talbotton Polk County Water Authority, Rockmart, Aragon, Portland, Van Wert, Floyd County water System, Rome Carroll Haralson Paulding Catoosa Walker Hurray Whitfield Banks Franklin Taliaferro Warren Crawford. Taylor Harris Meriwether Talbot Floyd Polk -30- .: POTENTIAL PARTICIPANTS IN LOCAL RESERVOIRS .J j :~1 Reservoir (refer to map) Participants Area Served 18 Clayton, Dillard, Tiger, Rabun Mountain City 19 Cleveland, Helen, White Robertstown 20 Clarkesville, Cornelia, Habersham Alto, Mt. Airy, Demorest/ Baldwin, Habersham County, Turnerville 21 Rockdale County, Conyers, Rockdale Milstead 22 Douglasville-Douglas County Douglas Water and Sewer Authority 23 Dade County Water and Sewer Dade Authority 24 Calhoun (serving Gordon Gordon County) 25 Ellijay, Gilmer County, Gilmer East Ellijay 26 Madison, Morgan County Morgan 27 Blairsville, Coosa Water Union Authority, Notla Water Authority 28 Dahlonega, Lumpkin County Lumpkin 29 .". ~;: :',' 30 '. 31 Franklin/Heard County Water Authority, Centralhatchee Bartow County, White, Kingston Summerville, Lyerly, Berryton, Menlo Heard Bartow Chattooga -31- IV. SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS :1 I~.'. ~'-., Georgia's water resources management plan is based on the 1972 Groundwater Use Act and the 1977 amendments to the Water Quality Control Act. The plan provides for the allocation of ground-water and surface water for reasonable use, insures safe drinking water, and protects the quality and quantity of Georgia's water resources. The Environmental Protection Division carries out the four key elements of the plan: water withdrawal permitting, public water system supervision, preparation of Georgia's water budget and emergency water shortage planning and implementation. The water budget is used to identify those communities which have existing or future inadequate water supplies. South Georgia has an abundant supply of ground-water sufficient to meet both current and future needs, if properly managed. North Georgia relies primarily on surface water which is insufficient for many communities. A system of public water supply and fishing lakes is being planned to correct this deficiency. The following recommendations are made to strengthen the water resources management plan and to assist local governments in providing safe and reliable drinking water. ,j o EPD's public water supply and fishing lakes siting and sizing project should be completed as outlined in this summary document '1 .j o A source of funds for local governments to perform the detailed design of public water supply and fishing lakes should be created. A grant program to be administered over a four year period to provide a 50% matching grant to local governments would satisfy this need. o Funds from the Georgia Environmental Facilities Authority loan program should be available to assist in the construction of public water supply and fishing lakes. o The agricultural withdrawal of both ground-water and surface water should become a part of the State's water management program. ,". -32- Appendix A BASIN HIGHLIGHTS Savannah River Basin The strength of the Savannah basin is in its plentiful water supplies adjacent to, and downstream of, the river's major reservoirs (i.e. Hartwell, Russell, and Clarks Hill lakes); and the ground-water resources south of the geophysical fall line near Augusta. The water resources, as they are current ly developed, are capable of meeting expected demand some distance into the future, with a few local exceptions. The most critical water resources issue in the basin is the management of ground-water in the Savannah region. A sizable drop (approximately 175 feet) in the piezometric head of the Floridan Aquifer over the past century at the center of the aquifer's cone of depression in Savannah led to a search for alternatives to arrest this decline. The past decade has seen this decline stabilized, and management guidelines are now in place to prevent localized aquifer overuse, while continuing to foster development in the region. Altamaha River Basin Generally, the surface water resources of the Altamaha basin, particu- larly along the main stem, are abundant, under-utilized, and of good quality. The fact that the only major surface water withdrawal facility in the entire basin is Georgia Power Company's Plant Hatch at Baxley illustrates the lack of use of surface water. The reliability of these potential surface sources is, however, hampered somewhat by the keen ., adverse impact of sustained reduced rainfall periods on surface stream flows in the basin due to the general absence of impoundments. The principal reason for under-utilization of surface sources in the basin is the availability of abundant, readily accessible supplies of ground-water. The reduced treatment costs associated with ground-water, along with its resistance to adverse impacts due to periods of reduced I rainfall, has made ground-water sources the supply of choice for municipal and industrial users in the Altamaha basin. Chattahoochee River Basin Upper regions of the Chattahoochee basin above the fall line have the greatest water demand and least available supply; the lower half of the basin has relatively abundant supplies of both surface water and ground-water, but demand is less. The major problem area in the basin is the metropolitan Atlanta area where there are several significant municipal withdrawals that will likely continue to grow rapidly. Development of a facility to reregulate releases from Lake Lanier would do much to alleviate metropolitan Atlanta water supply problems for some years into the future. Another area of concern is the Chattahoochee River headwaters region above Buford Darn where growth is rapid, but tributary areas small. Regional solutions are paramount. The Chattahoochee River from West Point Lake to the mouth of the -33- river is one of the most regulated stretches of river in the state, providing water for power generation, navigation, water supplies, and recreation. Municipal and industrial facilities away from the main stem of the Chattahoochee in the lower basin depend upon ground-water sources. More than 70 million gallons of water per day is used by users over the basin who are not yet required by state law to obtain withdrawal permits. Approximately 70 percent (50 mgd) is used for irrigation purposes, particularly in the lower extremity of the basin. Flint River Basin Water problems in the Flint basin are most serious in the headwaters region near the area south of Atlanta. Urbanization and rapid population growth in this area of scant surface water and ground-water supplies severely stress the available resources. Efforts are currently afoot to encourage regional solutions to what is certain to be a continuing concern. The lower portion of the Flint basin is endowed with abundant surface water and ground-water resources, and is experiencing much less population growth than the upper basin. However, there are large ground water withdrawals for irrigation in the lower basin, some of which exceed the rate of recharge of the affected aquifers. This phenomenon is leading to localized drops in the potentiometric surfaces in the Clayton and Claiborne aquifers. Tallapoosa River Basin The portion of the Tallapoosa basin within Georgia consists of the headwaters of the Tallapoosa and Little Tallapoosa rivers. Surface water supplies are therefore restricted by the small areal extent of these headwater regions. Ground-water availability is restricted by the area's geology. Population and water demand in the basin have both been relatively small and growth rates moderate. Owing to its proximity to metropolitan Atlanta, growth in the basin is not expected to cont inue a long as moderate a pace as reflected in .j past trends. Regional solutions to expected increases in water demand will lead to the most effective use of the limited resources. }j J Oconee River Basin The Oconee is another of several basins with restricted surface water availability in its northern extremity because it is located in headwaters. Ground water is also unproven in this Piedmont region of the basin. Coincidentally, the area of the basin with the most intense water use, and most rapid population growth (Clarke and Oconee counties), is this region of restricted water availability. Future water supply development options must necessarily consider regional solutions if effective use is to be made of the limited resources. There are several localized water supply concerns towards the central portion of the basin (e.g. Madison, Monticello, and Winder). Some of -34- these problems are related to lack of available storage to supplement supplies during reduced flow periods. In the lower portion of the basin (Le. below the fall line) both ground-water and surface water resources are abundant and capable of meeting current and projected demands. Ocmulgee River Basin The Ocmulgee basin's northern region is limited in the quantity of surface and ground water available, owing again to its location in the basin's headwaters, and within the Piedmont physiographic province. Again, as with other basins, the region of most intense development and water use is this area with acute limitations in available supplies. The dramatic increases in population of the counties on the northern end of the basin due to its proximity to metropolitan Atlanta are expected to continue to stress available supplies. Once again regional solutions to these problems of inadequate supply seem most prudent. ~j As the basin develops southward, supplies of both ground-water and .,J ~~ surface water become more abundant, but population concentration and water use by permitted facilities begin to decrease. The more cheaply "" developed ground-water resource is the supply source of choice. No major problems in meeting municipal and industrial demand are expected in the foreseeable future. Towards the lower end of the Ocmulgee basin use of ground-water and surface water for agricultural purposes (principally irrigation) exceeds permitted ground-water and surface water uses by a ten-to-one ratio. Almost 45 million gallons per day is taken from ground-water and surface sources for irrigation, yet no withdrawal permits are required for this use. Ogeechee River Basin Surface water resources in the basin are largely under-utilized. Surface waters are dispersed over the basin such that the only area with restricted surface water resources is the extreme northwest corner of the basin at the headwaters of the Ogeechee River. Almost the entire basin is underlain by the abundant ground-water resources of the Floridan Aquifer. The abundance of ground-water, and it-s relatively inexpensive development cost, is reflected in the fact that there are 44 major ground-water withdrawers in the basin, and only one surface water withdrawer. Satilla River Basin Under-utilization of surface water resources and proliferation of ground-water use are also characteristics of the Satilla basin. Surface waters here are acutely impacted by periods of reduced rainfall, whereas ground-water is abundant and very reliable in almost all situations. Towards the lower end of the Satilla basin in Brunswick (Glynn County) -35- heavy industrial ground-water withdrawals have resulted in significant declines of potentionmetric surfaces of the Floridan Aquifer. This has allowed some upward migration of brackish waters from lower water-bearing zones in the aquifer. Protection of the ground-water resources in the Brunswick area from further water quality degradation is therefore the major water resources concern in the basin. St. Marys River Basin Ground water is the source of choice. Surface sources could be used to supplement current ground-water withdrawals if necessary. I .1 .1 ~..,.: -36-