Georgia's Water Resources: A Blueprint for the Future June 28, 2007 DRAFT TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction 5 Overview 9 Draft Statewide Comprehensive Water Management Plan (Rule) 47 Implementation Plan 71 Acknowledgements 77 EPD's Draft Submission to the Water Council, June 28th, 2007 Georgia's Water Resources: A Blueprint for the Future Introduction to Statewide Water Planning The Vision for Comprehensive Statewide Water Planning Of all Georgia's natural resources, water is the most vital to sustaining our lives, quality of life, and livelihoods. This report, Georgia's Water Resources: A Blueprint for the Future, includes a plan to help guide Georgia's stewardship of our precious water resources so that they will sustain us today and in the future. The Draft Comprehensive Statewide Water Plan is written as a rule that, if adopted, will establish a set of policies to govern water management decisions and a set of management practices (i.e., actions and activities) that can be implemented to keep our use of water sustainable and protect water quality. Every Georgian has a stake in the successful adoption and implementation of the Water Plan. The opportunity to comprehensively address Georgia's water planning and management needs began in 2001 when the Georgia General Assembly created the Joint Comprehensive Water Plan Study Committee and the Water Plan Advisory Committee (the "Joint Study Committee"). The Joint Study Committee articulated a far-reaching vision for Georgia's water resource management that was ultimately captured in the 2004 Comprehensive State-wide Water Management Planning Act: "Georgia manages water resources in a sustainable manner to support the state's economy, to protect public health and natural systems, and to enhance the quality of life for all citizens" (O.C.G.A. 12-5-522(a)). The 2004 Comprehensive State-wide Water Management Planning Act also included nine principles to guide the water planning process: 1) Effective water resources management protects public health and the safety and welfare of Georgia's citizens; 2) Water resources are to be managed in a sustainable manner so that current and future generations have access to adequate supplies of quality water that support both human needs and natural systems; 3) All citizens have a stewardship responsibility to conserve and protect the water resources of Georgia; 4) Water resources management efforts must have a sound scientific foundation and recognize that economic prosperity and environmental quality are interdependent; 5) Water quality and quantity and surface and ground water are interrelated and require integrated planning as well as reasonable and efficient use; 6) A comprehensive and accessible data base must be developed to provide sound scientific and economic information upon which effective water resources management decisions can be based; 7) Water resources management encourages local and regional innovation, implementation, adaptability, and responsibility for watershed and river basin management; 8) Sound water resources management involves meaningful participation, coordination, and cooperation among interested and affected stakeholders and citizens as well as all levels of governmental and other entities managing or utilizing water; and 9) Periodic revisions of the comprehensive statewide water management plan may be required to accommodate new scientific and policy insights as well as changing social, economic, cultural, and environmental factors. Why does Georgia need a Comprehensive Statewide Water Management Plan? Georgia's current approach to water management has largely resulted from efforts to address specific issues or needs as they have emerged over the past several decades. This approach used a variety of policies and management practices that reflect federal legislative mandates and, often, could best address relatively localized and near-term water management challenges. However, as demands on our resources continue to grow, it has become increasingly clear that meeting Georgia's future water challenges will require more comprehensive management approaches. Such approaches need to incorporate methods to assess and evaluate the cumulative effects of individual decisions. While it is important to continue some current policies and practices, it is clear that the current approach alone is inadequate to meet the statutory vision for Georgia's water management. The water management approach we have employed to date is inadequate, in part, because it lacks three critical elements: A framework for consistently assessing the sustainable yield (the amount of water that can be withdrawn from a water source without causing harm) and available assimilative capacity (the amount of pollution a water source can receive before water quality degrades) in different regions across the state; and a comprehensive set of data and information from which to establish a scientific understanding of the status and condition of Georgia's water resources; Mechanisms to compare present and future water demands with the sustainable yield and assimilative capacity of our water resources; A comprehensive set of water management practices that can be implemented in region-specific ways to ensure that reasonable water needs are met without foreclosing opportunities for other reasonable uses of the water resources now or in the future. EPD's Draft Submission to the Water Council, June 28th, 2007 To resolve these inadequacies, the state must build on current management approaches and address the following basic realities of water management: It is critical that Georgia continue to improve the information base used to make water management decisions. Georgia needs more and better data and information with which to assess water quantity and water quality conditions, and the capability of our waters to meet future needs in a sustainable manner. Because our water resources, their condition, and their use all vary across the state, there must be flexibility in selecting the management approaches we employ from one region to another. Further, given limitations on data and information, it is likely that management policies and practices will have to be adapted as new information becomes available. Rigid, onesize-fits-all approaches to our water management challenges are not in Georgia's best interest. Some policies and management practices may apply statewide. Additional management practices will be needed if use of our water resources approaches or exceeds their natural capacities. Looking toward a future with increasing demands on our resources, it is clear that comprehensive water planning will be an on-going need. To effectively meet this need, we must combine comprehensive water planning and management in a consistent manner. The Planning Process The 2004 Comprehensive State-wide Water Management Planning Act charged the Environmental Protection Division of the Department of Natural Resources with developing a comprehensive statewide water management plan that would provide a structured yet flexible approach to water planning on the regional level, along with guidance and incentives for regional and local planning efforts. The Act also created the Water Council, a combination of elected and appointed officials and agency heads with water-related responsibilities, that is charged with: 1) Ensuring the coordination, cooperation and communication among state agencies and their water-related efforts in the development of a comprehensive statewide water management plan; 2) Providing input to the Environmental Protection Division during development of the draft comprehensive statewide water management plan; 3) Reviewing, modifying if necessary, and approving the final draft of the proposed comprehensive statewide water management plan; and 4) Recommending the plan to the General Assembly for consideration no later than the first day of the 2008 legislative session. Goals and Objectives of the Water Council The concepts developed during the Joint Study Committee process and codified in the 2004 Comprehensive Statewide Water Management Planning Act are aligned with the goals of statutes related to water resource management. Two overarching goals from these statutes helped direct the Water Council's deliberations on scope and objectives of this initial statewide water planning process: 1) To protect public health and environmental quality; and 2) To meet future water need while protecting aquifers, instream uses, and downstream users. With these goals, and the vision and guiding principles of the 2004 Comprehensive State-wide Water Management Planning Act in mind, the Water Council developed four management objectives. These management objectives provided the framework for developing the statewide water plan: 1) Optimize withdrawals of water by increasing water conservation, efficiency and reuse; 2) Maximize water returns to the basin of origin by managing interbasin transfers, the use of on-site sewage disposal systems, and land application of treated wastewater where water quantity is limited; 3) Meet in-stream and off-stream demands for water through efficient surface storage, aquifer management and reducing water demands; and 4) Protect water quality by reducing pollutant loadings from discharges and runoff from the land to ensure the assimilative capacity of the streams is not exceeded and aquatic life is not impaired. Public Participation The Act required the Environmental Protection Division to solicit extensive stakeholder involvement in the development of the proposed plan. The Act also declared that stakeholders should include, but would not be limited to, other state agencies, nonprofit advocacy groups, businesses, local government entities and associations of local government entities, and regional development centers. To comply with that requirement, EPD created seven Basin Advisory Committees (BACs): Chattahoochee; Coosa-TallapoosaTennessee; Flint-Ochlockonee; Oconee-Ocmulgee-Altamaha; Satilla-Suwannee-St. Marys; Savannah-Ogeechee; and an overlay that mirrored the boundaries of the Metropolitan North Georgia Water Planning District. The BACs, with 20 to 30 members per committee, represented a cross-section of entities with water resources management interests, including cities and counties, water providers, environmental groups, recreation interests, economic development groups, and representatives from the forestry, industrial, mining, and agricultural sectors. The committees were convened six times to review information developed by EPD and provide a regional perspective on proposed policy options and management practices. The names of those appointed to the BACs are shown in the acknowledgements at the end of this document. Georgia's Water Resources: A Blueprint for the Future In addition to the BACs, EPD also convened a State Advisory Committee (SAC) comprised of state-level representation of organizations on the BACs. Associations of local governments, agricultural interests, forestry and mining interests, along with economic development representatives and recreation and environmental groups, for a total of 32 members, came together eight times to offer a state-level perspective on EPD's proposed policy options and management practices. The names of those appointed to the SAC are also included in the acknowledgements at the end of this document. The general public was given multiple opportunities and means to engage in the comprehensive water planning process. In addition to the Basin and State Advisory Committee meetings, which were open to the public, the Water Council hosted 22 Town Hall meetings across the state to solicit input on the objectives of the comprehensive statewide water management plan. Hundreds attended these meetings and listened to EPD discuss the plan, and then provided input either through direct verbal comment, written comment, or email submission. A dedicated Web site, www.georgiawaterplanning.org, included information related to each objective, reports from all meetings, and a web-cast of one town hall meeting from each of the three rounds; comments were also received through the Web site. Description of Georgia's Water Resources: A Blueprint for the Future This document consists of three major sections: 1) "Overview of Georgia's Water Resources," 2) "Draft Comprehensive Statewide Water Management Plan," and 3) "Implementation of Regional Water Planning" The "Overview of Georgia's Water Resources" provides basic information and summary data on Georgia's surface water and groundwater resources. It is intended solely to provide a brief factual water resources backdrop, and is organized to comport with hydrologic and hydrogeologic divisions as they exist in Georgia. The "Draft Comprehensive Statewide Water Management Plan" describes the elements of the draft water plan. This section details the components of an integrated water policy that is the foundation of the plan. The section then outlines the recommended approaches to conducting the water resources assessments that will inform subsequent regional water planning efforts. The next two major elements in this section define a set of water quantity and water quality management practices (i.e., actions and activities) to be employed in building the regional components of the plan for future management of Georgia's water resources. The last element in the section describes the recommended approach to completing the regional water management plans. Each of the elements in this section is constructed in two sequential parts. The first part is a short narrative description of a subsequent `rule'; and the second part is the `rule' itself. This `rule' language, once adopted by the Water Council, will then be presented to the Georgia Legislature for adoption as the Comprehensive Statewide Water Management Plan during the 2008 Legislative Session. The final substantive section of the document is"Implementation of Regional Water Planning". This section describes the major steps in the processes recommended for completing regional water planning. EPD's Draft Submission to the Water Council, June 28th, 2007 Georgia's Water Resources: A Blueprint for the Future Georgia's Water Resources Population growth and economic prosperity in the state of Georgia are due in large part to our considerable water resources. Georgia contains parts of fourteen major river systems and multiple groundwater aquifer systems. Though water in Georgia seems to be abundant, it is not an unlimited resource. In recent years, Georgia's water use has expanded rapidly, growing by more than 20% between 1990 and 2000. The population growth and economic development which have contributed significantly to that expansion are expected to continue. Changing agricultural practices and recent droughts have also led Georgia's farmers to depend more heavily on irrigation to keep their crops healthy. Each day, facilities in Georgia withdraw 6.5 billion gallons from the surface waters and aquifers of the state. We use that water for a broad range of purposes. Households and businesses use water to drink, cook, water lawns, bathe, wash clothing and dishes, and many other uses. Industrial and mining operations use water for a wide variety of purposes. Large amounts of water are used to irrigate fields so as to produce maximum crop yields, especially during periods of drought. Fossil fuel and nuclear power plants, though they do not consume much water, depend on large amounts of water for power production. Our water use varies significantly by season. In the summer of 2004, irrigation used an estimated 2,890 million gallons per day (mgd), 1,820 mgd was withdrawn for municipal and industrial supply, and 2,530 mgd was withdrawn for use in thermoelectric power generation. In the winter months, 184 mgd was used for irrigation, 1,420 mgd for municipal and industrial uses, and 2,190 mgd for thermoelectric power production. We also derive significant benefits from rivers and streams themselves. Streams and lakes provide valuable recreation areas, where visitors come to fish, hike, canoe, camp, and sight-see. Hydroelectric power is produced using falling water, usually below a dam and reservoir. Hydroelectric plants in 2005 generated approximately 228,000 megawatt hours (MWh) of electricity, enough to power over 20,000 households for an entire year. Hydroelectric power is vital to maintaining a reliable and inexpensive supply of power, especially during periods of peak power demand. Waters in some parts of the state are used for commercial navigation. Rivers and streams are a vital component to wildlife habitats across the state, providing water and food for a wide range of aquatic and terrestrial species. In the coastal areas, the rivers flow into the delicate marsh and estuarine ecosystems, supplying them with the freshwater that is critical to their health. These marshes and estuaries are crucial to the state's commercial fishing industry. SOURCES: Georgia Environmental Protection Division, Watershed Protection Branch and the 2005 Ag Water Pumping Report Rivers and streams also must be able to assimilate pollution from wastewater discharges and urban and rural runoff. In the past decades, the state has spent well over a billion dollars upgrading wastewater treatment facilities to reduce the amount of pollution discharged into our rivers and improve water quality. However, some communities have aging infrastructure, and system failures can cause pollution emergencies. In some fast-growing areas, wastewater infrastructure has difficulty keeping pace with population growth. In all areas, wastewater discharge permits assume a defined minimum flow rate will be available to dilute any residual contamination. Currently, the most significant threat to water quality is non-point source pollution--contamination washed into the river from a variety of sources. Run-off from rural and urban areas can contribute a wide range of contaminants to streams, including chemicals, pesticides, metals, mud, sediment, bacteria, and nutrients. Land use practices have a significant effect on the quality of runoff. In Georgia, there are over 6,000 miles of streams that have been assessed that do not meet water quality standards. Most impairments are caused by non-point source pollution. SOURCES: Georgia 2006 305(b) list documents We all must share the state's water resources. Streams and rivers run through many political jurisdictions. The rain that falls in one region of Georgia may replenish the aquifers used by communities miles EPD's Draft Submission to the Water Council, June 28th, 2007 away. When one city withdraws water from a river or pumps water out of the ground, less water is available for people elsewhere to support economic development, irrigate crops, and generate power. If too much water is removed, the entire water system suffers as water quality degrades and streams can no longer support aquatic life and riverine habitats. If the level of water in one lake is kept high so boaters and fisherman can enjoy recreational opportunities or to store water to meet future domestic supply needs, downstream water flows may be too low to support a variety of uses. Structures such as dams and reservoirs that alter the naturally fluctuating river flows can also have widespread impacts on a river's health. Waterways have naturally varying water levels throughout the year, and low, high, and even flood levels each play a role in shaping ecosystems and water supply capabilities. The state has unique challenges in addressing future water supply needs. In the northern part of the state, which is the most populous, groundwater cannot reliably supply the quantities of water necessary for cities and large industrial operations. The majority of the state's residents rely on surface water to supply their homes. Recent droughts, as well as a current drought that began in 2006, have made it clear that Georgia must take a more comprehensive and coordinated approach to managing water resources if we are to properly protect and preserve our water for future uses. The Comprehensive State-wide Water Management Planning Act, signed in May of 2004, required that the state develop this plan. It also establishes the following vision for Georgia's water management: "That Georgia will manage water resources in a sustainable manner to support the state's economy, protect public health and natural systems, and enhance the quality of life for all citizens." This new comprehensive approach to water resource management will require new methods for gathering, organizing, and disseminating data to planners. Georgia also faces significant groundwater management challenges. The Floridan aquifer, which underlies Georgia's Coastal Plain, is one of the most productive aquifers in the world, and those who live above it depend on it heavily to meet their water needs. However, extensive pumping in coastal areas contributes to the intrusion of saltwater into portions of the aquifer. Some wells have been abandoned as high salt levels have rendered the water unusable for irrigation or domestic supply, and a temporary moratorium on groundwater withdrawal permits was imposed in 1997. Under a 2006 plan, areas along the coast now face more limits on how much water they can withdraw from the Floridan aquifer. Additionally, extensive reliance on the Floridan aquifer for irrigation during drought conditions, because of the significant connection between groundwater and surface water in southwest Georgia, contributed to reduced stream flows in the Chattahoochee and Flint river basins. In response to these reduced flows, the Environmental Protection Division (EPD) placed a moratorium on new agricultural withdrawal permits from the Floridan aquifer in southwest Georgia and on all agricultural surface water withdrawal permits for the entire Flint River Basin. SOURCES: Georgia Environmental Protection Division, Watershed Protection Branch Groundwater sources, like surface water sources, have a limited capacity to produce reliable quantities of water. Some aquifers refill slowly, and if water is pumped out more quickly than it can be replenished, groundwater levels can fall, and the aquifer may not fully recover in the near future, even if pumping is greatly reduced. Under such circumstances, the aquifer cannot support increased water withdrawals. SOURCES: Georgia Environmental Protection Division, Watershed Protection Branch 10 Georgia's Water Resources: A Blueprint for the Future GEORGIA'S RIVER BASINS A river basin encompasses the area drained by a river and its tributaries. Georgia has 14 major river basins, comprised of many smaller watersheds. Six of these basins are contained entirely within the state's boundaries. Eight of the basins cross state boundaries and the water resources must be shared with other states. Water in each of these basins is used for both off-stream purposes (uses for which water is withdrawn from the stream or aquifer) and in-stream purposes (uses of the water while it is still within the stream). Off-stream uses include public supply, industrial uses, and thermoelectric power generation. In-stream uses include the assimilation of pollution from point and non-point sources, support of aquatic life, hydroelectric power generation, recreation, and navigation. Each river basin has a unique pattern of water uses and water needs. 11 EPD's Draft Submission to the Water Council, June 28th, 2007 INTRA-STATE RIVERS Oconee River Basin The Oconee River Basin covers 5,330 square miles and includes parts of both the Piedmont and the Coastal Plain. The basin includes three major impoundments. Lake Oconee and Lake Sinclair are created by hydroelectric dams operated by Georgia Power. The Bear Creek Reservoir, which began operating in May of 2002, was constructed to address the water demands of Barrow, Oconee, Jackson and Clarke counties. Groundwater in the Oconee Basin is supplied by three major aquifer systems: crystalline rock; Cretaceous; and the Floridan. Off-Stream Water Uses The largest amount of water in the basin is withdrawn by Plant Branch, a fossil fuel plant near Lake Sinclair. The plant is the second largest generator of electricity in the state. The plant withdraws approximately 650 mgd from Lake Sinclair, but almost all of that water is returned to the lake. Municipal and industrial uses also constitute a significant water use in the basin. The basin supplies drinking water for the eastern Atlanta metropolitan area and the growing areas around Athens. Communities above the Fall Line, as well as the cities of Dublin and Milledgeville, rely on surface water sources, while smaller cities and communities to the south of the Fall Line are able to pump groundwater to meet demands. There is also significant water use by the kaolin, paper, and textile industries. Municipal and industrial users in the basin currently withdraw approximately 85 mgd. Estimates project that water demands in the upper part of the basin will more than double over the next few decades. Approximately 20% of the basin is dedicated to agriculture, including cattle and poultry production in the northern part of the basin, and row crops in the bottom half. Total agricultural use in the period between 1999 and 2004 averaged 2 mgd in the winter and 30 mgd in the summer. The majority of water for irrigation is withdrawn from groundwater sources. In-Stream Water Uses In the past decades, the state has spent $15 million upgrading the treatment facilities in the Oconee River Basin, and pollutants emanating from point sources have been greatly reduced. However, the 2006 list of impaired waters classifies 4% of the stream miles assessed as impaired due in part to point source contamination. Point source discharge from the power plant on Lake Sinclair has also affected water quality, raising the temperature of the lake water. Non-point source pollution poses a larger problem. The 2006 list of impaired waters classifies 53% of assessed stream miles as impaired by urban and rural runoff. The most prevalent problems in the basin are fecal coliform bacteria contamination, nutrients and sediment loading. A small number of stream segments have problems with pH, low dissolved oxygen levels, and metals contamination. The basin supports many important habitats. The basin includes significant wetland areas and is home to at least 74 species of fish, 37 species of amphibian, 11 turtles, and 7 snakes, as well as the American alligator. Of these, the spotted turtle is listed as `unusual' on the state Protected Species List. The eastern indigo snake is federally listed as `threatened'. The southern part of the basin supports the only known viable population of robust redhorse sucker. Aquatic communities in 30 stream segments have been significantly impacted by non-point source contamination. The surface waters of the basin are used for a range of recreational purposes. The two reservoirs on the Oconee are used locally for boating and fishing, which is dependent on the level of water maintained in the reservoir. The lakes support populations of bass, crappie, sunfish, and catfish. The Charlie Elliott Wildlife Center, which stretches across Jasper and Newton counties, provides wildlife education. The 6,400 acre center also contains the Marben Farms Public Fishing Area and the Clybel Wildlife Management Area, which are managed for public hunting. Other smaller areas along the river and its tributaries are used for fishing, hiking and hunting. Hydroelectric power generation is also a significant in-stream use. Georgia Power operates two major hydropower dams in the Oconee Basin, the Wallace Dam and the Sinclair Dam. Both are used to provide power during times of peak power demand. 12 Georgia's Water Resources: A Blueprint for the Future 13 EPD's Draft Submission to the Water Council, June 28th, 2007 Ocmulgee River Basin The Ocmulgee River Basin is located in central Georgia, between the Flint and Oconee river basins, and it drains approximately 6,085 square miles. The basin includes the Ocmulgee River and several major tributaries. Approximately half of the basin lies in the Piedmont province, and half in the Coastal Plain. The largest impoundment in the basin is Lake Jackson, a Georgia Power hydroelectric impoundment. Other significant impoundments include Black Shoals Reservoir in Rockdale County and Lake Varner in Newton County, which are both water supply reservoirs. Lake Juliette in Monroe County provides cooling water for Plant Scherer. Lake Tobesofkee, operated by Bibb County, is used primarily for recreation. Groundwater is supplied by three major aquifer systems: crystalline rock aquifers; Cretaceous aquifers; and the Floridan aquifer. Off-Stream Water Uses During the winter, the majority of the water withdrawn in the basin is for municipal and industrial purposes. Approximately 125 mgd is withdrawn during the winter and 174 mgd in the summer. Surface water is the primary water source in the Piedmont province; drinking water is almost exclusively drawn from groundwater sources in the southern portion. Population is concentrated in the metropolitan Atlanta area in the northern part of the basin and around Macon and Warner Robins, near the Fall Line. Water demand is expected to increase in the near future, especially in Gwinnett, Bibb and Houston counties, due to above average population growth rates. During the summer, agriculture constitutes the largest water use in the basin, with withdrawals of 208 mgd. Agricultural surface water demand in the southern half of the Ocmulgee River Basin is considerable, especially throughout Pulaski, Houston, Dodge, Telfair, and Ben Hill counties. The majority of water used for irrigation, however, is taken from groundwater sources. facilities, and the combined sewer overflow in the metro Atlanta area. The most prevalent problem is fecal coliform bacteria. As in the rest of the state, non-point source pollution causes more water quality problems than point source pollution. The 2006 list of impaird waters classifies 55% of stream segments as impaired due to non-point source contamination. The most prevalent problem in the basin is the impaired fish communities caused principally by erosion and sediment loading. Erosion and sedimentation are often problems in agricultural areas, as well as areas where there is significant development and construction. High levels of fecal coliform bacteria are also a significant problem in the basin. As one of Georgia's few remaining free flowing streams, the Ocmulgee River contains excellent habitat for numerous freshwater fish species, including many prized game fish. The basin is also home to the state-listed rare goldstripe darter and redeye chub and the endangered Altamaha shiner. In 65 stream segments in the basin, fish communities are impaired due to point and non-point source contamination. Fish consumption guidelines are in effect in three segments of the main stem of the Ocmulgee River and one segment of the South River due to PCB contamination. The Ocmulgee River Basin hosts a wide variety of recreational activities, including boating, swimming, fishing and picnicking. Lake Tobesofkee is a 1,750-acre reservoir near Macon operated by Bibb County. The lake provides good fishing for white x striped bass hybrids, largemouth bass, channel catfish, and black crappie. It is also very popular with pleasure boaters, especially during the summer. Lake Juliette is located about 17 miles north of Macon, Georgia, and is maintained in cooperation with the Georgia DNR. Lake Juliette is a fishing lake with limited hunting, fishing and camping allowed. Bowens Mill Fish Hatchery, located in Ben Hill and Wilcox counties, produces bluegill, redear sunfish, largemouth bass, channel catfish, and white x striped bass hybrids. Power generation also represents a significant offstream use. The basin includes the largest power plant in the state, Plant Scherer on Lake Juliette in Monroe County. The basin includes two smaller fossil fuel facilities, Smarr Energy Facility and Plant Robins in Houston County. In 2004, power plants in the Ocmulgee Basin withdrew approximately 94 mgd. Most of the water withdrawn for power generation is returned to the source In-Stream Water Uses Currently, 125 facilities discharge into the surface waters of the basin. Over the past several decades, Georgia has invested more than $100 million in upgrading the treatment facilities in the Ocmulgee River Basin, and pollutants emanating from point sources have been greatly reduced. However, the 2006 list of impaird waters identified 6% of assessed stream miles as impaired by point sources, including three municipal wastewater treatment plants, two industrial 14 Lake Jackson is a 4,750 acre lake located in Jasper, Butts, and Newton counties, with 135 miles of shoreline. It is a popular recreational area, and offers some of the best bream fishing in middle Georgia. Indian Springs State Park, a 528-acre park located in Flovilla, features a 105-acre lake with a swimming beach, a boating ramp and pedal boat rental. The High Falls State Park, a 1,050-acre park located in Jackson on the Towaliga River, features a 650-acre lake and hosts such surface water recreational activities as fishing, boating (two ramps), and canoe and fishing boat rental. Black Shoals Reservoir in Rockdale County and Lake Varner in Newton County both provide good fishing for largemouth bass, bream, crappie, and channel catfish. Georgia Power owns and operates one hydropower facility within the Ocmulgee River Basin. Lloyd Shoals Dam, below Lake Jackson, has a small generating capacity of 14,400 kilowatts. Georgia's Water Resources: A Blueprint for the Future 15 EPD's Draft Submission to the Water Council, June 28th, 2007 Altamaha River Basin The Altamaha River begins at the confluence of the Oconee and Ocmulgee Rivers in Telfair County, and its basin stretches southeast between the Ogeechee and Satilla river basins. The basin covers 2,870 square miles in Georgia. The Altamaha River empties into the Atlantic Ocean near Darien at an average annual flow rate of 14,300 cfs. Though it begins in the Piedmont Province, 95% of the basin is within the Coastal Plain. The largest tributary in the basin is the Ohoopee, which has an annual flow rate of 1,200 cfs. Under low flow conditions, tidal influences can extend 30-35 miles up the river, and saltwater wedges can be detected upstream nearly that far as well. Groundwater in the basin is supplied by the Floridan and Brunswick aquifers. Off-Stream Water Uses The only significant use of surface water in the basin is thermoelectric power generation. Plant Hatch, one of the state's two nuclear facilities, withdraws approximately 59 mgd from the Altamaha. Of the water withdrawn, approximately 34 mgd is not returned to the Altamaha. Municipal, industrial, and agricultural water is almost exclusively drawn from groundwater sources. Between 1999 and 2004, approximately 50 mgd was withdrawn for municipal and industrial purposes. Approximately 67 mgd was withdrawn for agricultural purposes during the summer, and 8 mgd during the winter. Future agricultural water demand is expected to increase slightly. In-Stream Water Uses Currently, 19 facilities discharge wastewater into the surface waters of the basin. Over the past several decades, Georgia has invested more than $96 million in upgrading the treatment facilities in the Altamaha River Basin, and pollutants emanating from these sources have been greatly reduced. However, 4% of assessed stream miles were listed as impaired on the 2006 list of impaired waters, due in part to municipal discharges. Water quality problems include fecal coliform bacteria and low dissolved oxygen. The Altamaha River Basin is home to 74 species of fish. Due to a dramatic increase in the abundance of flathead catfish within the river--a non-native species introduced in the late 1970s--there has been a significant decline in the numbers of some native species, such as the bullhead catfish and the redbreast sunfish. American shad, hickory shad, blueback herring, Atlantic sturgeon and shortnose sturgeon all swim up the Altamaha River in the spring to spawn, and the river supports the largest commercial American shad harvest of Georgia's rivers. Historically, Atlantic and shortnose sturgeon were also harvested commercially from the Altamaha River. However, the decline in abundance of these two species has led to the listing of the shortnose sturgeon as an endangered species and the closure of commercial fisheries for both species. The Altamaha River drains into Georgia's coastal marshlands, which include a significant proportion of the Atlantic seaboard's salt marshes and thousands of acres of rare tidal freshwater wetlands. The estuaries along the coast provide a nursery for crab, shrimp, oysters, clams and many fish species. These species have significant recreational and commercial significance: the commercial fishing industry off of Georgia's coast contributes over $22 million to the economy each year. Many of the coastal ecosystems are sensitive to water quality problems, and the Department of Natural Resources is making a concerted effort to promulgate regulations that will protect the coastal wetlands. The Altamaha River is popular with fishermen, offering excellent fishing for redbreast sunfish, largemouth bass, bluegill, redear sunfish, black crappie, flathead catfish, and channel catfish. There is some commercial navigation in the lower portion of the Altamaha River, particularly in the intracoastal waterway. The most popular recreational areas are in the coastal areas. More than 500,000 fishermen travel to the coast to fish each year, and tourism in the area brings more than $2 billion to the state annually. As with the rest of the state, non-point pollution causes more water quality problems than point source pollution. In the recent assessment, 69% of assessed stream miles were impaired due to non-point sources. The major concerns were low dissolved oxygen and fecal coliform contamination. Four streams, as well as Sand Hill Lake in Treutlen County had elevated levels of mercury. 16 Georgia's Water Resources: A Blueprint for the Future 17 EPD's Draft Submission to the Water Council, June 28th, 2007 Ogeechee River Basin The Ogeechee River Basin drains 5,540 square miles between the Altahama and Savannah basins. The main tributary in the Ogeechee River Basin is the Canoochee River, which flows through extensive river swamps on the Coastal Plain before joining the Ogeechee near King's Ferry. The Ogeechee and the Canoochee have significantly different flow regimes; periods of low flow in the Canoochee are far more extreme than the lows in the Ogeechee. The mean discharge of the Canoochee at Claxton is 472 cubic feet per second (cfs). The mean discharge of the Ogeechee at Eden is 2,283 cfs. Groundwater is supplied to the Ogeechee Basin from four different aquifer systems: crystalline rock aquifers; the Cretaceous and the Gordon aquifer in the area around the Fall Line, and the Floridan and Brunswick aquifers in the southern part of the basin. Off-Stream Water Uses Irrigation is the largest use of water in the basin. The area is a center for Vidalia onion growing, and also has significant acreage dedicated to commodities production, including peanuts, tobacco, cotton, and small grains. Agricultural water demand is highly concentrated in the summer months; between 1999 and 2004, agricultural withdrawals were 154 mgd during the summer, and only 16 mgd during the winter. Almost all agricultural water is supplied by groundwater. The population in the basin is concentrated in the suburban area south of Savannah as well as the city of Statesboro. Most water demands can be met by the Floridan aquifer, and there are only two surface water withdrawal permits in the basin. An average of 19 mgd is withdrawn from surface water and groundwater for public supply purposes. Kaolin operations are a significant water user in the basin, utilizing both surface water and groundwater sources. Groundwater withdrawals by mining operations, as well as clay pit dewatering, can cause localized drops in water level in the Cretaceous aquifers in Washington and Jefferson counties. Total industrial use is approximately 9 mgd. In-Stream Water Uses A total of 46 facilities have permits to discharge treated wastewater into the surface waters of the Ogeechee River Basin. In the past decades, the state has spent $12.5 million upgrading the treatment facilities in the Ogeechee River Basin, and pollutants emanating from these sources have been greatly reduced. The 2006 list of impaired waters classifies 1% of assessed stream miles as impaired due to low levels of dissolved oxygen created by waste from municipal wastewater treatment facilities. As with the rest of the state, non-point pollution causes more water quality problems than point source pollution. The 2006 list of impaired waters classifes 91% of assessed stream miles as impaired due to non-point source pollution. The principal problems are fecal coliform bacteria and high nutrient loads from urban and argricultural runoff. Fish in a significant portion of the Ogeechee River have high levels of mercury and the pesticide dieldrin in their tissues, which have warranted fish consumption guidelines. The basin is home to 59 species of fish, including large numbers of catfish, sunfish and suckers. The basin is also home to a large variety of larger animals strongly associated with the surface waters, including snakes, turtles, and the American alligator. The Ogeechee River drains into Georgia's coastal marshlands, which include a significant proportion of the Atlantic seaboard's salt marshes and thousands of acres of rare tidal freshwater wetlands. The estuaries along the coast provide a nursery for crab, shrimp, oysters, clams and many fish species. These species have significant recreational and commercial significance: the commercial fishing industry off of Georgia's coast contributes over $22 million to the economy each year. Many of the coastal ecosystems are sensitive to water quality problems, and the Department of Natural Resources has recently written new regulations to help protect the coastal wetlands. Fishing and swimming are popular in areas along the length of the Ogeechee and Canoochee rivers. Both the Ogeechee and Canoochee rivers support fisheries for sunfish, bass, and catfish. In addition, the Wildlife Resources Division raises bass at the Richmond Hill Hatchery in Bryan County for stocking in streams across Georgia. The most popular recreational attractions are in the coastal areas of the state. More than 500,000 fisherman travel to Georgia's coast to fish each year, and tourism in the area provides more than $2 billion to the economy each year. Skidaway Island is home to Skidaway Island State Park, which offers campgrounds, shelters, nature trails, and observation towers for bird-watchers. Sapelo Island, which is also a state park, offers attractions for nature lovers, who can explore the marsh, and history buffs, who can take guided tours of the island's historic communities. Fort McAllister, a state park on the Ogeechee just south of Savannah, offers camping, hiking and fishing, as well as a Civil War museum highlighting the park's preserved earthwork fortifications. 18 Georgia's Water Resources: A Blueprint for the Future 19 EPD's Draft Submission to the Water Council, June 28th, 2007 Satilla River Basin The Satilla River Basin covers 3,940 square miles entirely within the state of Georgia, in the southeast corner between the Altamaha and Suwannee river basins. The Satilla River is a blackwater stream that empties into the Atlantic Ocean between Cumberland and Jekyll islands at a rate of approximately 2700 cfs at its mouth. During extended dry periods, many of the smaller streams within the basin have virtually no flow, and the northernmost headwaters are especially unreliable as surface water sources. Groundwater in the Satilla River Basin is supplied by the Floridan and Brunswick aquifers. Off-Stream Water Uses The pulp and paper industry is the major water user in the basin. Industrial water withdrawals average a total of 51 mgd. The basin also supplies drinking water to Waycross, Douglas, and Brunswick. Approximately 17 mgd is withdrawn for public supply purposes. The basin supports more than 135,000 irrigated acres, and an average of 77 mgd is withdrawn during the summers. Most water is supplied by groundwater. Power generation is also a significant water use in the basin. Plant McManus, a two-unit, oil-fired power plant, is located on Crispen Island in Turtle Creek near Brunswick. The facility has a generating capacity of 596,000 kilowatts, and serves as a quick-response peaking plant, used to respond to seasonal peaks and system emergencies. The facility withdraws an average of 27 mgd. Non-point source pollution causes more water quality issues. The 2006 list of impaired waters classifies 85% of assessed stream miles as impaired by non-point source contamination. The most prevalent issues are low dissolved oxygen levels and fecal coliform bacteria contamination. Tissues in fish from two long segments of the main stem of the Satilla River have elevated levels of mercury. Fish species diversity within the Satilla River is limited by acidic water, low alkalinity, extreme variation in flows, and the relatively homogenous habitat present throughout most of the river. However, the estuaries along the coast are important ecosystems. More than 70% of recreationally and commercially important fishes, crustaceans and shellfish spend at least a part of their lives in the estuarine areas. Commercial fishery stocks have declined significantly in recent years, largely due to environmental deterioration in the estuaries. A wide variety of recreational activities are available throughout the Satilla River basin, including fishing, camping, boating, swimming, picnicking, and other activities. Recreational fishing is especially popular in the coastal area, which draws sport fishermen from across the region. The Satilla River also supports major fisheries for redbreast sunfish and catfish, along with smaller fisheries for sunfish, chain pickerel, warmouth and largemouth bass. Fisheries for largemouth bass, bluegill, chain pickerel, flier and catfish are present in the Laura Walker State Park Lake. In-Stream Water Uses A total of 51 facilities have permits to discharge treated wastewater into the surface waters of the Satilla River Basin. Over the past several decades, Georgia has invested more than $12.5 million in upgrading the treatment facilities in the Satilla River basin. The 2006 list of impaired waters classifies only one stream segment, the eight mile-long Little Red Bluff Creek in Atkinson County, as impaired by municipal discharge. Seven estuarine areas, all located in Glynn County, are unable to support fishing due to point source pollution from industrial facilities. The estuaries are contaminated with industrial chemicals, including PCBs and toxaphene, and metals, including mercury and cadmium. All of these estuaries are currently under a shellfish ban, and commercial fishing is prohibited in one estuary. Fishing and canoe rentals are offered at the General Coffee State Park, in Nicholls, Georgia. The Seventeen-Mile River winds through a cypress swamp in the park, where rare and endangered plants and animals can be found. The Cumberland Island National Seashore is a popular destination for hikers and campers. The island contains four major historic districts as well as some of the oldest archeological artifacts in North America. 20 Georgia's Water Resources: A Blueprint for the Future 21 EPD's Draft Submission to the Water Council, June 28th, 2007 Flint River Basin The Flint River covers 8,460 square miles. The river begins in the southern part of metropolitan Atlanta and terminates in Lake Seminole on the Georgia-Florida border, along with the Chattahoochee River. Though the river is contained entirely within the state of Georgia, the use of water in the Flint River Basin has been one of the subjects of a water dispute between Alabama, Florida, and Georgia. The principle concern is low water levels in Lake Seminole and in the Apalachicola River, which continues from Lake Seminole across Florida into the Gulf of Mexico. A future agreement between the states may limit the amount of water communities in Georgia can withdraw from the Flint and Chattahoochee Rivers. The river includes only two moderate impoundments, Lake Blackshear, near Warwick, and Lake Worth, near Albany. Both have minimal impact on the flow of the river. The Flint is far less modified than most of Georgia's rivers and in fact contains one of the longest stretches of free-flowing water in the contiguous 48 states. The Flint River Basin overlies 4 major aquifer systems: the crystalline rock aquifers, the Clayton, the Claiborne, and the Floridan. Overall water use in the Flint River Basin increased 42% between 1970 and 1990 and is projected to continue growing. Groundwater withdrawals saw the sharpest increase, rising 240% over the 20 year period. Because of the strong connection between groundwater and surface waters in the lower Flint Basin, groundwater pumping reduces flows in the river and its tributaries. In the past, drought conditions have seriously strained the water resources of the Flint Basin. There are long-term concerns about water availability in the Flint River Basin, and a regional water plan has been developed to manage irrigation withdrawals through farm use withdrawal permits. Off-Stream Water Uses Approximately 40% of the basin is used for agriculture, and irrigation is the principal water use. The basin supports 895,536 irrigated acreage in the southern part of the basin. The most extensively irrigated crops are cotton, peanuts, corn, vegetables, and pecans, and most water for irrigation is taken from groundwater sources. The amount of water necessary for irrigation varies greatly depending on rainfall. In drought years, according to the 2006 Flint River Basin Regional Water Plan, as much as 250 mgd can be withdrawn from surface waters for irrigation during peak irrigation months; 950 mgd may be withdrawn from groundwater sources. The Flint is also used for public water supply and industrial purposes. The southwestern counties of the metropolitan Atlanta area use the Flint River, and the city of Albany utilizes both the Flint River and groundwater sources to meet its supply needs. Below Albany, communities rely on groundwater for municipal supply. Between 1999 and 2004, withdrawals for public supply and industrial purposes averaged 97 mgd. Power generation also represents a significant water use in the basin and accounts for the largest portion of water withdrawals during the winter months. Plant Mitchell in Dougherty County has a generating capacity of close to 250 megawatts. Plant Crisp generates power for Crisp County, including the municipalities of Cordele and Arabi. The plants withdraw an average of 118 mgd, which is returned to the source. In-Stream Water Uses A total of 114 facilities have permits to discharge treated wastewater into the surface waters of the Flint River Basin. Over the past decades, Georgia has spent over $180 million improving the municipal wastewater treatment facilities in the Flint River Basin, and in the 2006 list of impaired waters, only 1% of assessed streams miles were considered impaired by point source contamination. Non-point source pollution poses a larger problem. The 2006 list of impaired waters classifies 33% of assessed stream miles as impaired due in part to urban runoff and other non-point sources. Water quality is most impacted by urban runoff in the Atlanta and Albany areas. Problems with non-point source pollution will likely grow as the population of the basin increases. The Flint River Basin supports a wide range of aquatic life. The basin contains 85 species from 19 families. The stretch of the Flint River between Albany and Lake Seminole, where considerable groundwater recharge creates cool areas for fish in the hot summer months, is the only place in Georgia where Gulf strain striped bass are able to reproduce. The Georgia Department of Natural Resources has placed a high priority on protecting this native species and stocks the fish in Lake Blackshear in an effort to create a successful spawning run up the Flint River. The basin is also inhabited by 16 species of turtle, 21 species of salamander, 26 species of frog, and the American alligator, which all depend on the basin's freshwater habitats. Fifteen amphibian and reptile species are rare or endangered, including the Barbour's map turtle and the alligator snapping turtle. During drought conditions, flows in the Flint River Basin can fall to extreme lows that are unable to support aquatic ecosystems. 22 Georgia's Water Resources: A Blueprint for the Future 23 EPD's Draft Submission to the Water Council, June 28th, 2007 ...Flint River Basin continued The Flint River and its two reservoirs are heavily used for recreation, especially fishing. Many local businesses rely on the economic activity attracted by major bass tournaments. The 5,850 acre Big Lazar Creek Wildlife Management Area in Talbot County is open to the public for hunting, and includes a 195 acre lake offering highquality fishing. The waters of the Flint River Basin are also used for tubing, rafting and sight-seeing. Several guide services operate along the river. The basin has two hydropower dams, Warwick Dam below Lake Blackshear and the Flint River Dam, which do not generate a significant amount of electricity. The Flint River is only navigable for the few miles between Lake Seminole and Bainbridge. The navigation in the Georgia portion of the channel is dependent on channel depths in the Apalachicola River south of Lake Seminole. Lake Blackshear offers fishing, hiking trails, campgrounds, rental cabins, swimming areas, boating, and golf. Georgia Veteran's Memorial State Park, which encompasses five miles of the lake's shoreline, is one of Georgia's most popular state parks. 24 Georgia's Water Resources: A Blueprint for the Future INTERSTATE RIVERS Chattahoochee River Basin The Chattahoochee River covers 8,770 square miles, 70 % of which lie in Georgia. The river begins in the Blue Ridge Mountains as a free-flowing trout stream. The first major impoundment on the river is Lake Lanier, which at 38,542 acres is the largest reservoir located wholly in Georgia. Below the lake, the river flows through the most densely populated part of the state before entering the rural areas south of the Fall Line. The river is highly modified. Thirteen different dams are used for a variety of purposes, including hydropower, water supply, and recreation. The Chattahoochee River Basin overlies the crystalline rock, the Cretaceous, Clayton, Claiborne and Floridan aquifers. The use of water in the Chattahoochee River Basin has been one of the subjects of a water dispute between Alabama, Florida, and Georgia. A future agreement between the states may limit the amount of water communities in Georgia can withdraw from the Chattahoochee and Flint river basins. Off-Stream Water Uses The Chattahoochee River is the most utilized drinking water source in the state, and 488 mgd is withdrawn for public supply purposes. The portion of the basin north of Columbus does not have sufficient groundwater resources to support municipal and industrial uses, leaving the state's largest metropolitan area dependent on surface water to meet supply needs. The Chattahoochee River is much smaller than the rivers supporting the country's other major metropolitan areas. In the southern part of the basin, groundwater can meet water supply needs. Withdrawals for industrial purposes averaged 110 mgd between 1999 and 2004. Approximately 70 mgd of water withdrawn from the Chattahoochee surface waters is used outside of basin boundaries. Agricultural water use constitutes a small portion of total demand in the basin, even in drought conditions, though withdrawals are still significant. Between 1999 and 2004, withdrawals for agricultural purposes averaged 100 mgd during the summer. Power plants account for approximately 44% of water withdrawals in the basin. Georgia Power operated three fossil fuel plants: McDonough-Atkinson in Cobb County, the Yates plant in Coweta County, and the Wansley Plant in Heard County. Between 1999 and 2004, these facilities withdrew 475 mgd in the winter, and 530 mgd in the summer. These three facilities represent close to 20% of Georgia Power's generating capacity. All but 68 mgd is returned to the source. The Farley Nuclear Plant near Dothan in Alabama and the Scholz fossil fuel plant in Snead, Florida also use water from the Chattahoochee. In-Stream Water Uses Before the 1970s, the Chattahoochee River was heavily impacted by untreated wastewater discharges, from municipal and industrial facilities. Parts of the river had little or no aquatic life and posed a threat to human health. Since the 1970s, however, the state has spent over $500 million upgrading and constructing wastewater treatment plants, and the river and its biological communities have mostly recovered. Currently, 172 facilities discharge into the waters of the basin, and only 3% of the basin streams were classified in the 2006 list of impaired waters because of point source discharges. Two minimum flow guidelines have been established in the Chattahoochee to ensure that discharged wastewater does not cause water quality problems: 750 cubic feet per second (cfs) at Peachtree Creek and 1,150 cfs at Columbus. Non-point source pollution is a larger issue in the basin. On the 2006 list of impaired waters, 54% of assessed stream miles are classified as impaired due in part to non-point sources. The most common problem is fecal coliform bacteria contamination. Some areas are also impacted by erosion and sedimentation caused by development, agriculture, and forestry. Lake Lanier and Walter F. George Lake have problems with algae overgrowth due to nutrient loads from runoff. The fish in four of the hydroelectric lakes have elevated levels of PCBs, attributable to non-point sources. Despite extensive modifications to the river bed, the basin supports a diverse biological community. The basin is home to 104 species of fish, 37 species of salamanders and sirens, 24 species of freshwater turtle, and the American alligator. Nine plant species and 12 animal species are listed for protection by federal or state agencies. The native Gulf strain striped bass are stocked in several portions of the basin, including Lake Harding, Lake Walter F. George, and Lake Seminole, as part of a tri-state effort to protect the species. Maintenance of suitable aquatic habitats is highly dependent on naturally fluctuating stream flows, and stream flow policies are especially critical in basins such as the Chattahoochee, which has several significant dams. Several species have been impacted by the numerous structures on the main stem of the Chattahoochee River, which can restrict the range of aquatic animals and significantly alter the volume and range of stream flows. The population of the rare Barbour's map turtle, for example, declined significantly after Lake Seminole was created. Some areas, especially the reservoirs on the Coastal Plain, have experienced an overgrowth in algae and aquatic vegetation. The altered hydraulic conditions, sedimentation and high nutrient input due to suburban and agricultural runoff create conditions that are very favorable to undesirable and introduced plant species. The problem is especially severe in Lake Seminole, where plant growth has covered nearly 80% of the lake's surface. 25 EPD's Draft Submission to the Water Council, June 28th, 2007 ...Chattahoochee River Basin continued The Chattahoochee River Basin contains some of the most popular recreation areas in the Southeast. The most well-known is Lake Lanier, which receives more than 16 million visitors each year. The Corps of Engineers manages 46 different park areas, and surrounding county and city governments also lease land for local parks. The North Georgia Mountains are a popular destination for people across the region. The mountains contain parts of the Chattahoochee National Forest and numerous state parks, as well as many resort communities, including Helen. A 48-mile segment of the Chattahoochee River in the metro Atlanta area was designated a National Recreation Area in 1978. The series of parks along this stretch provides city residents the opportunity to hike, fish, or picnic along the river. Fishing opportunities throughout the basin have a vital economic significance to many of Georgia's cities and towns. The mountain tributaries support significant reproducing fish populations, and the Department of Natural Resources stocks streams to the north and south of Lake Lanier with trout. Lake Lanier, West Point Lake and Lake Seminole host major bass tournaments each year which bring large numbers of visitors to local businesses. In addition to supporting natural populations, the Chattahoochee River is home to U.S. Fish & Wildlife's trout hatchery. The hatchery produces approximately 150,000 pounds of trout annually, which is used to stock public lakes and streams around the state. The Chattahoochee River has been used for hydroelectric power production for over 150 years. The first hydroelectric dam, the Eagle Phenix Dam, was built in 1834, and operated until recently. There are now eleven hydropower facilities on the river. Four hydroelectric facilities are operated by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers: Buford Dam, below Lake Lanier in northern Gwinnett County, West Point Dam in Troup County, and Walter F. George Lock and Dam and George W. Andrews Lock and Dam near Fort Gaines. Georgia Power operates seven hydroelectric facilities in the basin, including one in Roswell and six in the ten miles just north of Columbus. The facilities have a combined capacity of close to 320 MW, and are vital to meeting peak energy needs during the summer. The Chattahoochee River is navigable from the mouth of the Apalachicola in Florida up to Columbus. The channel, however, requires considerable maintenance and must be frequently dredged. Since the 1980s, droughts have caused channel depths to drop significantly, and use of the channel has been greatly diminished. Water levels in the Corps of Engineers reservoirs, which are used for both drinking water and recreation, drop when large amounts of water are released into the channel to support navigation. 26 Georgia's Water Resources: A Blueprint for the Future 27 EPD's Draft Submission to the Water Council, June 28th, 2007 Coosa River Basin The Coosa River covers 4,619 square miles, 46% of which lie in Georgia. It begins in northwest Georgia in the mountains of the Blue Ridge Valley and Ridge regions and descends into the rolling hills and plateaus of the Upper Piedmont and Cumberland Plateaus. The basin includes three major storage reservoirs: Carter's Lake, on the Coosawatee, Lake Allatoona, on the Etowah, and Lake Weiss, on the Coosa. Weiss Dam, which creates Lake Weiss, is located in Alabama, but the reservoir extends into Georgia. The Coosa River Basin overlies the crystalline rock aquifers and the Paleozoic rock aquifers. The use of water in the Coosa River Basin has been one of the subjects of a water dispute between Alabama and Georgia. A future agreement between the states may limit the amount of water communities in Georgia can consume from the Coosa Basin. wastewater treatment plants in the basin to decrease the level of pollutants discharged. The 2006 list of impaired waters classifies 13% of assessed stream miles as impaired due to residual contamination from industrial discharges. The principal issue is PCB contamination from a facility in Rome which is undergoing cleanup. As with the rest of the state, non-point pollution causes more water quality problems than point source pollution. The 2006 list of impaired waters classifies 55% of assessed stream miles as impaired due to urban runoff and rural non-point pollution. The most common problem in the basin is fecal coliform bacteria contamination. Construction and development, especially in the metro Atlanta area, often lead to high nutrient levels and sediment loads. Parts of Carter's Lake and Allatoona Lake have excessive algae growth due to high nutrient levels. Off-Stream Water Uses The Coosa River is the second most-used source for drinking water in the state. The majority of the water used in the basin comes from surface water sources, though some rural areas and small communities in north Atlanta use groundwater. Cobb County, which lies outside of the basin, transfers 23 million of gallons of water per day (mgd) to meet their water supply needs and later discharges the water into the Chattahoochee River Basin. Several other smaller public water systems outside of the Coosa Basin purchase surface water for public supply purposes. An average of 94 mgd is withdrawn for public supply purposes, and that amount is expected to increase dramatically over the next decades. Power generation accounts for the largest withdrawals in the basin. Georgia Power operates two coal-fired power plants in the basin: Plant Bowen, on the Etowah River downstream of Lake Allatoona, and Plant Hammond on the Coosa River in Coosa, Georgia. Plant Bowen is the largest power plant in the state. These plants have enough generating capacity to power close to 900,000 homes. The plants withdraw a combined 574 mgd from the Coosa and Etowah rivers for power generation. All but 34 mgd of that water is returned to the source. Historically, a large amount of water was withdrawn to support the active carpet, poultry processing and paper industries in the area. Water use by the industrial sector has declined, and industrial withdrawals currently represent only about 5% of total withdrawals. Agriculture in the basin is principally animal operations, and does not use significant amounts of water. In-Stream Water Uses A total of 131 facilities have permits to discharge treated wastewater into the surface waters of the Coosa River Basin. These facilities are concentrated along the Etowah River and in the Rome area, where the Oostanaula and the Etowah flow together. Over the past decades, the state has spent over $170 million to upgrade Though the basin supports a wide range of species, many of those native to the river basin are struggling. One study found that a large number of native species have disappeared from the basin in recent decades, including 63% of the snail species. Many of the species still in the basin are threatened or endangered, including 13 fish species and eleven species of mollusc. The Etowah and Conasauga River have the highest numbers of imperiled species. The principal threat to aquatic species in the basin is sedimentation caused by development, poorly designed forestry roads, and certain agricultural practices. Some species are also affected by the highly fluctuating flows below both of the basin's dams. Parts of the Coosa Basin are used heavily for recreation. The upper part of the basin encompasses the scenic northwest Georgia mountains, which contain a cold-water trout fishery, several creeks and rivers with excellent rafting and canoeing, resort areas, state parks, the Chattahoochee National Forest, and the Cohutta Wilderness. Lake Allatoona and Carter's Lake are both popular reservoirs for swimming and boating and support good fisheries for walleye, catfish, crappie, and a variety of bass. Allatoona is one of the mostvisited Army Corps of Engineers reservoirs in the southeast. A large number of people have second homes in the area, and lake visitors contribute significantly to the local economy. These lakes are both created by hydroelectric dams operated by the Army Corps of Engineers. The dams have a combined power capacity of 199,400 kW. In the future, power generation at the dams may need to be reduced so the reservoirs can be used to meet agricultural, municipal supply, and recreational needs. The Coosa River is navigable below Montgomery, Alabama. The current water negotiations between Georgia and Alabama may result in an agreement requiring releases from Georgia's reservoirs to support navigation in Alabama. 28 Georgia's Water Resources: A Blueprint for the Future 29 EPD's Draft Submission to the Water Council, June 28th, 2007 Tallapoosa River Basin Only 15% of the Tallapoosa River Basin's 4,680 square miles lies in Georgia. The Tallapoosa eventually joins the Coosa in Alabama to form the Alabama River. There are no major dams in the Georgia portion of the basin. Total mean annual flow at the state line is approximately 960 mgd. The basin overlies the crystalline rock aquifers. Off-Stream Water Uses The only significant off-stream use in the basin is public supply, which accounts for approximately 10 mgd of water withdrawals. The amount of water necessary to meet public supply needs is expected to increase to 25 mgd by 2020, driven by population growth. The surface waters of the Tallapoosa are unable to meet this level of demand during periods of drought. The West Georgia Regional Water Authority was formed to address long-term water supply challenges for the region, and a reservoir was proposed for the Tallapoosa Basin, which would be used to supply water for the Tallapoosa, and portions of the Chattachoochee and Coosa basins. Ongoing negotiations with Alabama have stalled plans to build the reservoir. The Tallapoosa Basin is home to 72 species of fish, 12 species of amphibian, and at least 3 riparian reptiles. Six species of fish have been listed as endangered, threatened or rare by the state, and several amphibians are considered of special concern by the Georgia Natural Heritage Program. The basin includes several secondary trout waters--streams where stocked trout will survive but will not reproduce. The streams of the basin also support a high-quality bass fishery, though it is not currently heavily utilized by fisherman. John Tanner State Park in western Carroll County, which includes two small lakes, offers swimming, boating, fishing, camping, hiking trails, picnic shelters, and rental cottages. In-Stream Water Uses A relatively small amount of wastewater is discharged in the Tallapoosa River Basin. The 2006 list of impaired waters included two stream segments totaling four miles in the basin with elevated levels of copper due to an industrial point source. Non-point source pollution poses a larger problem and the 2006 list of impaired waters classifies 45% of the assessed stream miles as impaired by urban and rural runoff. The most prevalent problem in the basin is fecal coliform bacteria. Three segments have impaired biological communities due to sedimentation, nutrients and other water quality issues which emanate from urban and agricultural runoff. 30 Georgia's Water Resources: A Blueprint for the Future 31 EPD's Draft Submission to the Water Council, June 28th, 2007 Ochlockonee River Basin The Ochlockonee River Basin covers 6,330 square miles, 23% of which lies in Georgia. The basin is located between the Flint and Suwannee River basins, with its headwaters in Worth County. The Aucilla River and Wards Creek watersheds are included in this basin, even though each discharges its waters separately and never joins with the Ochlockonee River. The average annual flow of the Ochlockonee is an estimated 850 cubic feet per second (cfs) at the state line. Groundwater in the Ochlockonee River Basin is supplied by the Floridan aquifer. Off-Stream Water Uses Irrigation is the principal water use in the basin. Withdrawals for agricultural purposes are 172 mgd in the summer, and 20 mgd in the winter. About a third of the water used for irrigation is taken from surface water sources, with the rest supplied by groundwater. The area is largely rural and only 12 mgd is withdrawn to support public supply and industrial uses. This water is taken almost exclusively from groundwater. In-Stream Water Uses A total of 16 facilities have permits to discharge treated wastewater into the surface waters of the Ochlockonee River Basin. The 2006 list of impaired waters classifies 11% of assessed stream miles as impaired due to point sources contamination. Fish in one reach of the Ochlockonee below Moultrie have elevated levels of mercury. The major non-point pollution concerns for the surface waters within the Ochlockonee River Basin are fecal coliform bacteria, erosion and sedimentation, low dissolved oxygen, and fish consumption guidelines due to mercury contamination. The 2006 list of impaired waters classifies 98% of assessed stream miles as impaired by non-point sources. The Ochlockonee River Basin has a high percentage of game fish species, including redbreast sunfish, largemouth bass and channel catfish. Several species listed as rare in Georgia, such as the Suwannee bass, Bannerfin shiner and Spotted bullhead occur in the Ochlockonee River Basin. The aquatic communities in the basin have been impacted by sedimentation related to agricultural activities. The Ochlockonee River Basin is home to a wide variety of recreational activities, including boating, fishing, picnicking, swimming, and more. The Ochlockonee supports a heavily used fishery and is especially popular with bank anglers. Most of the fishing occurs in late spring when water levels fall after the high flows of winter and early spring. 32 Georgia's Water Resources: A Blueprint for the Future 33 EPD's Draft Submission to the Water Council, June 28th, 2007 Upper Tennessee River Basin Only 6% of the 21,390 square miles of the Upper Tennessee River Basin lies within the state of Georgia. The entire basin drains 21,390 square miles in the states of Tennessee, North Carolina, Virginia and Georgia. The Georgia portions include several watersheds: Chickamauga Creek and its tributaries in the counties of Catoosa, Walker and Whitfield counties, the headwaters of the Hiwassee and Nottely Rivers in Towns and Union Counties, and the Toccoa River in Fannin County. All of these streams flow north across the state line. The Upper Tennessee River Basin has one of the most diverse biological communities in North America. Approximately 68% of all freshwater fish species in the Southeast can be found in the basin. The basin waters also support high-quality trout fisheries for both wild and stocked fish. The U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service operates a hatchery on a tributary to the Toccoa River which raises 324,000 rainbow trout annually for distribution to federal waterways, as well as several endangered and threatened species. The Georgia portion of the basin includes three major Tennessee Valley Authority impoundments: the Chatuge Reservoir, which is formed by a dam across the state border in North Carolina, the Nottely Reservoir, and Lake Blue Ridge. The principal population centers are the towns of Hiawassee, Blairsville, and Blue Ridge. The mountainous area is rural and heavily forested. The basin overlies north Georgia's crystalline rock aquifers and northwest Georgia's Paleozoic aquifers. Off-Stream Water Uses Only a small amount of water is withdrawn in the basin. The Tennessee River Basin supplies drinking water to the cities of Hiawassee, Blairsville, and Blue Ridge and supports rubber and textile manufacturing operations. Total public supply and industrial withdrawals between 1999 and 2004 averaged 19 mgd. Most areas use groundwater for public supply. Agriculture in the basin is dominated by livestock operations, which do not represent a significant water use. Lake Chatuge and Nottely have not supported a healthy diversity of species in recent years, though they are able to support populations of several species of recreational importance, especially bass and catfish. In addition, the water below the TVA dams has contained low levels of dissolved oxygen and has been unable to support healthy ecosystems. The TVA has made improvements in their dams to try and address oxygen levels. Flow policies have also been changed, so that a minimal flow is maintained even when the dam is not being operated for power generation. The area is heavily used for recreation. The reservoirs and streams throughout the Tennessee Basin, especially the high-quality trout streams, are a draw for fishermen across the region. Kayakers and canoers visit the Toccoa River when the Blue Ridge Dam is releasing water, and Nottely Reservoir has campgrounds and a beach. The basin in Georgia also includes significant parts of the Chattahoochee National Forest, popular with campers and hikers. The entire mountain region supports several resort communities. In-Stream Water Uses A total of 36 facilities have permits to discharge treated wastewater into the surface waters of the Tennessee River Basin. No stream segments are listed as impaired by point source discharges on the 2006 list of impaired waters. However, 50% of assessed stream miles are impaired due to non-point sources. The most prevalent problem in the basin is fecal coliform bacteria, which can emanate from both urban and agricultural runoff. In addition, water quality in the Chatuge and Nottely reservoirs has been rated as poor by the TVA in the past several years, due principally to non-point source pollution. Twenty-three stream segments have impaired fish communities due to erosion and sedimentation which can originate with both agricultural areas and new development and construction. The three TVA hydropower plants in the Georgia portion of the Tennessee Basin have a relatively small combined generating capacity of approximately 47 megawatts. There is no commercial navigation in the Georgia portion of the Tennessee River Basin, though there are navigable portions in Tennessee. 34 Georgia's Water Resources: A Blueprint for the Future 35 EPD's Draft Submission to the Water Council, June 28th, 2007 Savannah River Basin The Savannah River Basin covers 10,577 square miles, 55% of which lie in Georgia. The headwaters of the Savannah River Basin rise in the Blue Ridge Mountains in the northeast corner of Georgia and across the state borders in North and South Carolina. The Tallulah River flows through six different hydroelectric facilities and their associated impoundments. It joins the Chattooga River in Lake Tugaloo, another hydroelectric lake. The Tugaloo River joins South Carolina's Seneca River in Lake Hartwell, the first of three Corps of Engineers Lakes. The Corps of Engineers also manages Lake Richard B. Russell and Clarks Hill Lake (also known as J. Strom Thurmond Lake). The basin overlies five major aquifer systems: crystalline rock, the Cretaceous, the Gordon, the Brunswick, and the Floridan. Groundwater quality is threatened in the Savannah area, where intensive pumping has caused saltwater to intrude into the aquifer. Groundwater problems affect water supply decisions in the future, especially as the area's population expands. Off-Stream Water Uses Two of Georgia's largest cities lie in the Savannah Basin: Augusta and Savannah. More than 20% of water withdrawn in the basin is used for public supply purposes. Most of this water is withdrawn from surface water sources. Augusta and Savannah both use a combination of surface water and groundwater to meet municipal supply needs. Approximately the same amount of water is used to support industrial operations along the river. The largest industrial users in the basin are paper and chemical manufacturing operations. Agriculture represents a relatively small water use in the basin, though the basin does support 53,000 irrigated acres below the Fall Line. The largest off-stream water use is power generation which accounts for 336 mgd of water withdrawals. Two fossil-fuel plants and one nuclear power plant are located in the Georgia portion of the basin and represent more than 3,000 megawatts of generating capacity, enough to power 660,000 homes. The fossil fuel plants are Plant Kraft in Port Wentworth near Savannah and Plant McIntosh in Rincon. Plant Vogtle, in Waynesboro, is a nuclear facility. Plant Vogtle consumes approximately 43 mgd per day. In-Stream Water Uses A total of 173 facilities have permits to discharge treated wastewater into the surface waters of the Savannah River Basin. In the past decades, the state has spent $136 million upgrading the treatment facilities in the Savannah River Basin, and pollutants emanating from these sources have been greatly reduced. The 2006 list of impaired waters classifies 6% of assessed stream miles as impaired due in part to municipal discharges. Industrial discharges contributed to the impairment of one 14 mile-long segment of Eastanollee Creek, a tributary to Lake Hartwell, which has elevated levels of metals. Non-point source pollution contributes more to water quality problems. The 2006 list of impaired waters classifies 47% of assessed stream miles as impaired by non-point source pollution. The most prevalent problem is fecal coliform bacteria, which can be caused by urban and agricultural runoff. Sedimentation and oxygendemanding loads are also significant problems in the basin. The Savannah Basin is home to 108 species of fish and supports significant wetland areas in the southern part of the basin. The U.S. EPA, The South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control, and the EPD are developing a revised dissolved oxygen standard for the Savannah Harbor that will protect aquatic communities. The Army Corps of Engineers is also studying the harbor and developing strategies to address dissolved oxygen and salinity issues related to deepening the harbor. The Savannah River Basin hosts a wide variety of recreational activities. The Chattooga River in the upper basin is listed by the federal government as a "Wild and Scenic River," and is popular with canoers, rafters, fisherman and hikers. The Georgia Power lakes in the mountains are a popular place to build summer homes and are a destination for boaters and fisherman. Moccasin Creek State Park, along the shores of Lake Burton, offers fishing and boat rental. The hydroelectric impoundments in the mountains and the three reservoirs on the main stem all support good fisheries for a wide range of sport fish. The three major Army Corps of Engineers reservoirs draw 21 million visitors annually.The ability of all three lakes to support recreational activities depends on water management priorities; as well as providing recreation opportunities, the lakes are also used for flood control, water quality management downstream, and peak power generation. Tallulah Gorge State Park surrounds one of the deepest canyons in the eastern United States, and has drawn sightseers since the turn of the century. Georgia Power periodically releases water from their hydroelectric lakes to show visitors the waterfalls that existed before the dams were built along the Tallulah River, as well as giving experienced kayakers the chance to experience the river's rapids. Georgia Power operates six hydroelectric dams on the Tallulah River, as well as a hydroelectric facility below Lake Tugaloo. The smaller upstream dams have very limited capacity, with a combined capacity of 167 megawatts. The Army Corps of Engineers operates three hydroelectric facilities below each major reservoir. These facilities have a combined generating capacity of 1,638 megawatts. The Savannah River was once navigated between Savannah and Augusta, but the river is now rarely used for commercial navigation. The Port of Savannah continues to be an important shipping port. The Corps of Engineers is currently studying a harbor expansion project which would allow larger ships further into the harbor. 36 Georgia's Water Resources: A Blueprint for the Future 37 EPD's Draft Submission to the Water Council, June 28th, 2007 Suwannee River Basin The Suwannee River Basin covers 10,000 square miles, 56% of which lies in Georgia. The basin is located in south-central Georgia, in between the Flint and Satilla River basins. In Georgia, the basin includes three major streams: the Withlacoochee, the Alapaha, and the Suwannee rivers. These rivers join south of the Georgia-Florida border. The basin also includes a portion of the Okefenokee Swamp, a vast peat-filled bog inside a huge, saucer-shaped depression that was once part of the ocean floor. Approximately 20% of the Suwannee River Basin is covered by wetlands. Groundwater in the basin is supplied by the Floridan aquifer. Off-Stream Water Uses The basin supports 416,000 irrigated acres, and agriculture is the principal water use in the Suwannee River Basin. Between 1999 and 2004, withdrawals for irrigation averaged 22 mgd in the winter and 375 mgd in the summer. Water in the basin supports the cities of Valdosta, Tifton, and Moultrie, and public supply is the largest water use during the winter. Approximately 33 mgd is withdrawn for public supply purposes. Almost all of the water withdrawn in the basin is taken from the Floridan aquifer. In-Stream Water Uses A total of 61 facilities have permits to discharge treated wastewater into the surface waters of the Suwannee River Basin. Over the past several decades, Georgia has invested more than $12.5 million in upgrading the treatment facilities in the Suwannee River Basin. These upgrades have resulted in significant improvements in water quality below wastewater treatment plant outfalls. The 2006 list of impaired waters classifies only 2% of assessed stream miles as impaired due to fecal coliform bacteria from municipal discharges. Non-point source pollution is a larger issue in the basin. The 2006 list of impaired waters classifies 66% of assessed stream miles as impaired due to non-point source contamination. The most prevalent problem in the basin is low levels of dissolved oxygen. Many segments also have high levels of fecal coliform bacteria from urban and agricultural runoff. The fish in eight stream segments have elevated levels of mercury in their tissues. Reed Bingham Lake in Colquitt and Cook counties and Banks Lake also have elevated mercury levels resulting from non-point source contamination. Acidic waters, low alkalinity, and extreme variation in flow limit the fish populations in the basin, though there are populations of catfish, topminnows, sunfish, and Suwannee bass. A large variety of other species can also be found in and around the surface waters of the Suwannee River basin, especially in the Okefenokee Swamp. The swamp is a unique habitat and is home to 233 species of birds, 49 species of mammals, 64 species of reptiles and 37 species of amphibians, including otters, water moccasins, the onceendangered American alligator, the Sandhill crane, osprey, anhinga (water turkey), great blue heron, yellow crowned night heron, great egret, white ibis and the endangered wood stork. There are also at least 621 species of plants found in the Okefenokee Swamp. Other parts of the basin also support wetland habitats. There are a large number of state and local parks for recreational activities within this basin, mainly due to the presence of the Okefenokee Swamp. Approximately 400,000 people per year visit the Okefenokee National Wildlife Refuge (NWR), which was established in 1936. The swamp offers excellent fishing, and several parks offer boat and canoe rentals, guided boat tours and campgrounds. Banks Lake in Lanier County also supports a smaller National Wildlife Refuge. The Reed Bingham State Park is located 6 miles west of Adel, Georgia, and is 1,613 acres. The park surrounds a 375-acre lake that has become a major boating and water-skiing attraction. The park offers a swimming beach and three boat ramps. Activities offered for recreational surface water use include boating, canoe rentals, a fishing dock, and fishing boat rentals. The waters of the basin support fisheries for chain pickerel, warmouth, largemouth bass, bluegill, topminnow, sunfish, catfish and crappie. 38 Georgia's Water Resources: A Blueprint for the Future 39 EPD's Draft Submission to the Water Council, June 28th, 2007 St. Marys River Basin The St. Marys River Basin covers 1300 square miles, 59% of which lie in Georgia. The St. Marys River is a blackwater stream that flows north and east, forming the border between southeast Georgia and northeast Florida. In addition to the St. Marys River, the major streams within the basin include the North Prong St. Marys River and Spanish Creek. Groundwater in the basin is supplied by the Floridan and Brunswick aquifers. Off-Stream Water Uses The basin supports some agriculture and the cities of St. Marys, Folkston and Kingsland. Only 1.5 mgd is withdrawn in the winter, and 2 mgd in the summer. That number is expected to increase slightly as the population grows. In-Stream Water Uses A total of 8 facilities have permits to discharge treated wastewater into the surface waters of the St. Marys River Basin. Over the past several decades, Georgia has invested more than $12.5 million in upgrading the treatment facilities in the St. Marys River Basin. The 2006 list of impaired waters does not classify any streams as impaired by point source discharges. Non-point sources pose more of a problem. In the assessment, 98% of assessed stream miles were found to be impaired due to non-point source contamination. One segment has low levels of dissolved oxygen. One 55 mile segment has elevated levels of mercury. The river is well-known for its many landmarks, and for its nearnatural conditions. While acidic waters, low alkalinity, and extreme variation in flow limit the productivity of fish populations within the basin, it is still home to large families of sunfish, minnows and catfishes. In addition to fish species, the marshlands of the St. Marys River Basin are home to gopher tortoises, fiddler crabs, herons and other coastal and riparian species. The basin includes portions of the Okefenokee Swamp, a unique ecosystem that is home to 233 species of birds, 49 species of mammals, 64 species of reptiles and 37 species of amphibians. Recreational activities in the St. Marys River Basin include boating, swimming, camping, fishing, and other activities. There are good fishing opportunities for largemouth bass, redbreast sunfish, bluegill, warmouth, crappie, and several catfish species throughout the St. Marys River and its tributaries. Approximately 400,000 people per year visit the Okefenokee National Wildlife Refuge (NWR), which was established in 1936. The swamp offers excellent fishing, and several parks offer boat and canoe rentals, guided boat tours and campgrounds. The St. Marys dock serves as a riverboat access point to Cumberland Island. Nearby, the Crooked River State Park offers cottages near the river, a nature trail through maritime forest and salt marsh, a boat ramp which is popular with anglers, kayaking and boating. 40 Georgia's Water Resources: A Blueprint for the Future 41 EPD's Draft Submission to the Water Council, June 28th, 2007 GEORGIA'S AQUIFER SYSTEMS Most of the Earth's surface is underlain by groundwater, which collects in pores and cracks in rocks. Layers of rock that can produce water when pumped are referred to as aquifers. The reliability and productivity of groundwater aquifers depend on a wide variety of variables, including how easily water can pass through the rocks (permeability), the size and number of openings in the rock (porosity), the rate of leakage from adjacent geologic units, and the rate at which the water in the rocks is replenished by precipitation and its connections to surface water sources and recharge areas. Aquifers can be confined, meaning they lie under impermeable geologic layers which prevent infiltration by water from the surface except in isolated recharge zones. Unconfined aquifers are not separated from the surface by these confining units and are more likely to fluctuate in response to precipitation or drought and are more susceptible to contamination from the surface. Paleozoic Aquifers Limestone in the Valley and Ridge and Appalachian Plateau provinces contains a widely variable system of disconnected aquifers that are very close to the ground surface. In many areas, these aquifers can be highly productive, yielding thousands of gallons per minute (gpm). These aquifers are small and disconnected, and large amounts of pumping can cause significant drops in groundwater levels. Because of their proximity to the surface, groundwater levels are often strongly affected by drought conditions, and groundwater pumping can have a direct impact on stream flows in the Coosa River Basin. When groundwater levels are drawn down because of drought or groundwater withdrawals, sinkholes may develop. Crystalline Rock Aquifers Most of the Piedmont and Blue Ridge portions of the state are underlain by crystalline rock aquifers, which do not yield sufficient water to support municipal uses except for some small cities. The large cities across this region, including the bulk of the metropolitan Atlanta area, rely on surface water. These aquifers are unconfined, and groundwater levels vary considerably in response to rainfall. Cretaceous Aquifers The Cretaceous aquifer system runs across the state directly adjacent to the Fall Line, the northern edge of the Coastal Plain. This aquifer system comprises the Providence aquifer in southwest Georgia and the Dublin - Midville aquifers in east-central Georgia. Most parts of the aquifer are prolific water producers and can yield a typical range of 50 to 1200 gpm. Pumping from portions of the Cretaceous aquifer can have direct impact on stream flows in several river basins. Claiborne Aquifer The Claiborne is located in the southwest part of the state, where it is heavily used for water supply. The Claiborne is also used for industrial and municipal supply in Dougherty, Crisp and Dooly counties, and provides irrigation water for the northern part of the Dougherty Plain. Groundwater levels fluctuate throughout the year. Gordon Aquifer The Gordon aquifer is also a significant source of water for municipal supply, industrial, and agricultural use in east-central Georgia. Levels of water in the Gordon fluctuate throughout the year and are influenced by precipitation levels. Clayton Aquifer The Clayton aquifer underlies part of the southwestern corner of the state, near the city of Albany. The aquifer stretches under portions of the Chattahoochee and Flint river basins and lies under the Claiborne aquifer. Though the aquifer is relatively small, it serves as a major source of water for irrigation and municipal supply, and it is able to produce a typical range of 250 to 600 gallons per minute. The Clayton aquifer refills slowly, and extensive pumping has had a significant effect on groundwater levels. Levels have declined since the first supply wells were installed, but have declined steeply as irrigation in the area has grown. Because the aquifer is replenished so slowly, groundwater levels would not recover even if changes were made in withdrawal volumes. A moratorium was placed on new groundwater withdrawal permits in the mid-1990s. Brunswick Aquifers The upper and lower Brunswick aquifers are found under a large portion of the southeastern corner of Georgia. Across their reach, the aquifers overlie the highly productive Floridan aquifer. The Brunswick aquifers can produce as much as 180 gpm, but typical yields are in the range of 10 to 30 gpm. The Brunswick aquifers have historically served as supplementary water sources for the Brunswick and Savannah metropolitan areas. However, as restrictions are placed on pumping water from the Floridan aquifer due to saltwater intrusion, more industries and municipalities may turn to wells that tap the Brunswick aquifers. 42 Georgia's Water Resources: A Blueprint for the Future 43 EPD's Draft Submission to the Water Council, June 28th, 2007 Floridan Aquifer The Floridan Aquifer underlies a significant portion of Georgia's coastal plain, as well as areas of South Carolina, Alabama, Mississippi and the entire state of Florida. The 100,000 square mile aquifer is one of the most productive in the world, and the principle source of groundwater in Georgia. In Georgia, the Floridan Aquifer system is divided into the Upper Floridan and the Lower Floridan. The northern edge of the aquifer is the thinnest. Toward the southeast, it thickens to a maximum of 1700 ft. The aquifer system is generally confined, but is semi-confined to unconfined near Valdosta and in areas in the Dougherty Plain. The aquifer has significant hydrologic connection to the surface waters of the Chattahoochee and Flint river basins, and groundwater levels have an effect on stream flows. The Floridan aquifer has been used to supply municipal water for more than 100 years. However, the amount of water used has increased notably due to the expansion of irrigation, population, industry, and mining. In recent years, cities and industries in the coastal area have pumped less water from the Floridan aquifer as they have become more efficient and moved towards surface water sources. The population in the area is growing quickly, however, and water needs in the coastal area will likely increase. Deep cones of depression have formed in the aquifer in the areas surrounding Brunswick, Savannah, Jesup, Riceboro, and St. Marys as well as some neighboring areas in South Carolina and Florida. Over time, saltwater has begun to intrude into the aquifer from the ocean in the Savannah area and from a deep pool of salt water in the Brunswick area. Some wells in Brunswick and near Hilton Head had to be abandoned due to high salt content. The cone of depression in St. Marys recovered after pumping was greatly reduced. EPD suspended new groundwater withdrawal permitting for a period of time in the coastal area. Recently, the EPD has implemented a new strategy to reduce the amount of water withdrawn from the Upper Floridan aquifer with Chatham and Effingham counties by mandating more aggressive conservation practices across all water use sectors and encouraging the reuse of highly treated wastewater. The heavy agricultural use of the aquifer in the southwestern part of the state, especially the 15-county area known as the Dougherty Plain, has caused groundwater levels to decline in some places. This part of the Floridan aquifer has a hydrologic connection with the surface waters, meaning that withdrawals from groundwater wells can affect the level of streams and rivers in both the lower Flint and Chattahoochee river basins. Water levels are also declining in Tift and Cook counties in south centeral Georgia. The 2006 Flint River Basin Regional Water Development and Conservation Plan is an attempt to address this issue, among others. Surficial Aquifers Shallow surficial aquifers exist throughout the state, principally in the Coastal Plain. Theses aquifers are generally unconfined, and water levels generally rise quickly during wet periods but can drop considerably during periods of drought. Pumping in these aquifers can have significant impact on the flows in surface water. These aquifers are used locally for domestic supply and livestock operations. As part of the concerted effort to reduce the amount of water withdrawn from the Floridan aquifer, surficial aquifers in the coastal region have been considered as a possible supplemental supply. 44 Georgia's Water Resources: A Blueprint for the Future SOURCES Clarke, John S. (2003) The Surficial and Brunswick Aquifer Systems-- alternative ground-water resources for coastal Georgia. Proceedings of the 2003 Georgia Water Resources Conferences, April 23-24, 2003. Clarke, John S. and Pierce, R.R. (1985). "Georgia Groundwater Resources."In National Water Summary, 1984: U.S. Geological Survey Paper 2275, p. 179-184. Fanning, Julia L. "Water Use in Georgia by County for 2000 and Water-use trends for 1980-2000. Georgia Dept. Of Natural Resources. "Georgia State Parks." Available online: www.gastateparks.org/ . Accessed May 5, 2007. Georgia Dept. of Natural Resources. Coastal Resources Division. The Condition of Georgia's estuarine and coastal habitats 2000-2001 interim report. Report number 001. Georgia Environmental Protection Division (1997). Chattahoochee River Basin Management Plan. Georgia Environmental Protection Division (1997). Flint River Basin Management Plan. Georgia Environmental Protection Division (1998). Coosa River Basin Management Plan. Georgia Environmental Protection Division (1998). Tallapoosa River Basin Management Plan. Georgia Environmental Protection Division (1998). Oconee River Basin Management Plan. Georgia Environmental Protection Division (2001). Savannah River Basin Management Plan. Georgia Environmental Protection Division (2001). Ogeechee River Basin Management Plan. Georgia Environmental Protection Division (2002). Ochlockonee River Basin Management Plan. Georgia Environmental Protection Division (2002). Suwanee River Basin Management Plan. Georgia Environmental Protection Division (2002). Satilla River Basin Management Plan. Georgia Environmental Protection Division (2002). St. Marys River Basin Management Plan. Georgia Environmental Protection Division (2004). Ocmulgee River Basin Management Plan. Georgia Environmental Protection Division (1997). Altamaha River Basin Management Plan. Georgia Environmental Protection Division (2005). Draft Coastal Georgia Water and Wastewater Permitting Plan for Managing Salt Water Intrusion. Georgia Environmental Protection Division (2006). Statewide Water Planning Process, BAC Discussion Packet #3. Georgia Environmental Protection Division (2006). Flint River Basin Regional Water Development and Conservation Plan. Georgia Environmental Protection Division (2006). Draft Georgia 2006 305(b)/303(d) list documents. Georgia Power. "Facts & Figures." Available online: http://www. georgiapower.com/about/facts.asp . Accessed April 1, 2007. Hicks, D. W., Krause, R. E., and Clarke, J. S., 1981, Geohydrology of the Albany Area: GA DNR Information Circular 57. Hiwassee River Watershed Coalition. "About the Watershed." Available online: http://www.hrwc.net/aboutwatershed.htm . Accessed February 28, 2007. Tennesse Valley Authority. "Home page." Available online: http:// www.tva.com/. Accessed March 1, 2007. Tyson, Anthony W. Georgia's Ground Water Resources. Bulletin 1096. October 1993. Upper Coosa Riverkeeper. "Economic Importance : Coosa River Basin Initiative." Available online, http://www.coosa.org/about-thecoosa/economic-importance. Accessed April 2, 2007. U.S. EPA. Permit Compliance System Database. Accessed February 28, 2007. U.S. Army Corp of Engineers. "Information Paper: Navigation on the Apalachicola." Available online: http://www.sam.usace.army.mil/ webdoc/apalachicola.pdf . Accessed April 1, 2007. U.S. Geological Survey (1990). Ground water atlas of the United States : Alabama, Florida, Georgia, and South Carolina. HA 730-G. U.S. Geological Survey. (1995). The Upper Tennessee River Basin Study Unit. NAWQA Fact Sheet FS-150-95. U.S. Geological Survey. (2000) Ground-water conditions in Georgia, 1999. Open-file report 00-151. U.S. Geological Survey (2005). Ground-water conditions and studies in Georgia, 2002-2003. U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2005-5065. U.S. Geological Survey. "Earth's Water: groundwater." Available at: http://ga.water.usgs.gov/edu/mearthgw.html. Accessed March 27, 2007. Water Resource Solutions (2006). Flint River Basin near Albany, Ga. Aquifer Storage and Recovery (ASR) Feasibility Study. 45 EPD's Draft Submission to the Water Council, June 28th, 2007 46 Georgia's Water Resources: A Blueprint for the Future Draft Statewide Comprehensive Water Management Plan Synopsis Of Draft Rule Chapter 760-1-1 "Statewide Water Management Planning" Chapter 760-1-1 is proposed to set forth the policies for Georgia's statewide water management planning as described in O.C.G.A. 12-5-520, including an integrated water management policy, guidance for adequately assessing the state's water resources, management practices addressing water quality and quantity, and regional water planning. Purpose: Rule sections 760-1-1-.01 through 760-1-1-.02 describe the need for statewide water management planning in Georgia, recognizing that Georgia's waters have water supply and assimilative capacities that govern their use, our water resources have a limited capacity to supply water and assimilate pollution, and that water use and pollution in one part of the state can affect users in other areas. Georgia will manage water resources in a sustainable manner to support the state's economy, protect public health and natural systems, and enhance quality of life for all citizens.The interrelated nature of water quality and quantity and surface and groundwater necessitates an integrated approach to water management planning and an understanding of the capacity and sustainable yield of each water resource. These sections also define critical terms for use in the rule. Rule sections 760-1-1-.03 through 760-1-1-.05 explain the state's integrated water management policy, which states that water quality and quantity and surface and groundwater are interrelated and require integrated planning; recognizes the values and opportunities provided by clean water and historic flow patterns; protects and restores water quality; and maintains and aims to maintain the use of Georgia's water resources and assimilative capacity for current and future use and users. These policies can best be accomplished when supported by a thorough scientific understanding of Georgia's surface and groundwater resources. These sections direct the Division to comprehensively incorporate water quality and water quantity considerations in permitting and planning decisions, including managing the consumptive use of water. These sections also authorize the Division to determine the sustainable yield of surface water sources (and, as appropriate, groundwater sources) as guidance for regional water planning. The Division must establish surface water quality standards and effluent limitations on a watershed basis and provide that information as guidance for regional water planning. Rule section 760-1-1-.06 establishes a framework for scientifically assessing the status and condition of Georgia's water resources. The framework includes four key elements: (1) compiling existing data, (2) coordinating and integrating existing voluntary and regulatory data collection efforts, (3) identifying gaps in current data gathering programs, and (4) developing a program for data management and monitoring that fills the gaps identified. The Director is authorized to develop a plan and budget to address these issues, including a monitoring program based on sound scientific foundations to monitor surface water flows, groundwater levels and sourcespecific determinations of sustainable yield ("water quantity resource assessments"), and a monitoring program to assess water quality conditions across the state. In completing a water quantity resource assessment, the Director must (1) define aggregate geographic boundaries for the water source, (2) consider flows from hydrologically connected adjoining water sources and the extent to which withdrawn water is returned to the water source, and (3) establish and consider the sustainable yield of a water source (including water storage and prior water management and development practices). The Director must also establish watershed based effluent limitations and the hydrologic boundaries for determining the limitations, and use these criteria in permitting decisions. Rule sections 760-1-1-.07 through 760-1-1-.10 describe the range of water quantity (including demand, return and supply) management practices available to manage the consumptive use of water from a given source, including supplementing the sustainable yield of the source when possible without foreclosing opportunities for other users and uses. While most management practices implemented will vary on a regional basis under the respective regional water development and conservation plans, the rule highlights water conservation as the priority water quantity management practice that must be incorporated by all water use sectors. The Division must develop a water conservation implementation plan, including guidance for new required water conservation practices for each water use sector. Under the plan, applicants for new or modified water withdrawal permits for non-farm use must develop a water conservation plan and demonstrate progress toward water conservation and efficiency goals. The rule states that the preferred method of disposing of treated wastewater is to return it to a surface water body, and onsite sewage management systems, land application systems and water pollution control plans should be managed to meet benchmarks for return flows to water sources as established by the Division. The rule also establishes criteria for decision-making with respect to new reservoirs and interbasin transfers. It also allows for an assessment of aquifer storage and recovery, and acknowledges the potential importance of desalination. Rule sections 760-1-1-.11 through 760-1-1-.13 establish the range of management options available to protect clean waters and restore impaired waters, acknowledging that the most effective way of doing so is on a watershed basis. It recognizes the importance of ongoing monitoring and authorizes the Director to develop a new designation for "Significant Natural Resource Waters" to be added to the use classifications of the Water Quality Control rules (391-3-3-.03(4)) and update water quality standards for bacteria and dissolved oxygen for all areas of the state. These sections also emphasize compliance with existing water pollution laws, particularly in the areas of land use, storm water runoff, impervious surfaces and water quality. The rule directs the Director to undertake enhanced compliance 47 EPD's Draft Submission to the Water Council, June 28th, 2007 activities and to establish a variety of partnerships to help manage non-point sources of pollution on a watershed basis, better coordinate where multiple permits are required, and review the possibility of watershed permitting and pollutant allocation trading. Rule section 760-1-1-.14 establishes a framework for regional, resource-based planning that allows either the Division or a regional water planning council designated by the Division to develop a regional water development and conservation plan (WDCP). The WDCP will assure long-term, sustainable availability of water supply and assimilative capacity in the region and guide Division water permitting decisions and state grant and loan allocations related to water resources.The rule directs the Division to assess each water resource in the state for its ability to meet current and projected needs for water supply and assimilative capacity. The Director is responsible for delineating regional water planning areas based on hydrologic boundaries and consideration of other factors, such as jurisdictional boundaries and existing infrastructure. The Director also designates regional water planning councils, which must be structured to be diverse and broadly representative of local governments and water-related interests in the water planning area. Pursuant to guidance by the Division and the Director, regional water planning councils will oversee preparation of the recommended regional WDCP. Plans must include forecasts of water supply and assimilative capacity needs for each water source within each planning area and recommended management practices to be implemented in the region. Memoranda of Agreement between the Division and respective regional water planning councils will guide implementation of the WDCP. Main Features: This rule includes: (1) Findings, Purpose and Definitions; (2) Integrated Water Policy, including Water Quantity Policy and Water Quality Policy; (3) Assessing the Status and Conditions of Georgia's Water Resources; (4) Water Quantity Management Practices, including Conservation, Return and Supply Policies; (5) Water Quality Management Practices, including Enhanced Standards and Monitoring and Enhanced Pollution Management Practices; and (6) Regional Water Planning. Contents of Draft Rule 760-1-1-.01 760-1-1-.02 760-1-1-.03 760-1-1-.04 760-1-1-.05 760-1-1-.06 760-1-1-.07 760-1-1-.08 760-1-1-.09 760-1-1-.10 760-1-1-.11 760-1-1-.12 760-1-1-.13 760-1-1-.14 Purpose Definitions Integrated Water Policy Water Quantity Policy Water Quality Policy Assessing the Status and Conditions of Georgia's Water Resources Water Quantity Management Practices Water Demand Management Practices Water Return Management Practices Water Supply Management Practices Water Quality Management Practices Enhanced Water Quality Standards and Monitoring Practices Enhanced Pollution Management Practices Regional Water Planning 48 Purpose Georgia's current approach to water management has evolved in a piecemeal fashion over several decades, mainly through reactions to federal legislative mandates and localized and immediate water issues such as droughts. However, as the population and economy of the state grow and the demands on our water resources increase, a comprehensive approach to water management will be necessary. The purpose of this rule is to establish a comprehensive statewide water management plan that guides the state in managing water resources so as to ensure continued opportunities for economic growth, protection of public health, and preservation of natural systems. This plan has four major components: Guiding policies for water quantity and water quality management; Provisions for assessment of the capacities of our water resources; A "toolbox" of management practices; and Provisions for regional planning to select the management practices that best fit the resource conditions and uses in different regions throughout the state. The comprehensive statewide water management plan employs concepts which are innovative for Georgia. The first is the use of thorough resource assessments. We cannot effectively plan for and manage what we do not measure. Selecting the optimum water management strategies requires precise information about the capacities of our water resources. We must determine how much water we can withdraw from our major rivers, lakes, or aquifers without causing negative impacts; this amount of water is also called the sustainable yield. We also must determine the assimilative capacity, which is the amount of wastewater and stormwater streams can assimilate before water quality begins to degrade. EPD will begin the process of assessment by identifying the hydrologic boundaries of watersheds and aquifers to be used for assessment purposes. EPD will analyzing existing information, and where that information is not sufficient, undertake enhanced monitoring. The second new concept is the development of regional forecasts of water supply and assimilative capacity demands. These forecasts will be developed for planning regions that will be designed to reflect jurisdictional boundaries and economic interdependencies as well as hydrologic boundaries. Regional forecasts will be compared with the water resource assessments for each planning region so that areas that may face water challenges in the future can be identified. A package of management practices, tailored to local needs and resource conditions, can then be selected to meet those challenges. The third concept is the regional water development and conservation plans. These plans, which will be developed for all of the planning regions, will describe the water management practices to be employed in each area. Since water resources, their conditions, and their uses vary greatly across the state, selection and implementation of management practices on Georgia's Water Resources: A Blueprint for the Future a regional and local level is the most effective way to ensure that current and future needs for water supply and assimilative capacity are met. The management practices specified in the water plans for each region will be supported by statewide guidance. All three of these water management concepts are supported by and consistent with current Georgia law. State law provides the foundation for development and implementation of a comprehensive statewide water management plan, and this rule is designed to be consistent with Georgia's current statutes. Most fundamentally, the regulated riparian legal doctrine and provisions regarding reasonable use will continue to guide water management in Georgia. Other provisions of our current management system will remain in place and the plan will not change priorities for water use, compel interbasin transfers, or favor one area of the state over another. The plan builds upon current statutory framework to create a more integrated water management policy consistent with the vision and guiding principles presented above. Figure 1 depicts the overall approach to integrated water management laid out in this plan. The process is a cycle, rather than a one-time plan. Based on current state laws and policies, the cycle has four major steps that will be addressed in regional planning following the provisions of this rule: 1. The cycle begins with completion of a set of water resource assessments by EPD. These assessments will define the capabilities of Georgia's water resources in terms of water supply and capacity to assimilate pollution. 2. A regional water planning council will then be responsible for using regional population and employment estimates to forecast needs for water and assimilative capacity within a water planning region. 3. A regional water development and conservation plan will be prepared, identifying the management practices to be employed to ensure that the forecasted regional water and wastewater needs can be met without exceeding the water 49 EPD's Draft Submission to the Water Council, June 28th, 2007 quantity and water quality capacities identified in the resource assessments. In some situations, the regional water plan may identify management practices that will supplement the resource capacities in a manner that conforms to criteria established by this plan. The regional water management plans will be reviewed by the EPD, and if they are consistent with EPD's guidance, EPD will adopt them. 4. Once adopted, the plans would be implemented by the water users in the water planning region and EPD will make water permitting decisions based on the plans. EPD, in cooperation with federal agencies, local governments, and other partners, will continue to monitor water resources to maintain and update information on the status and condition of the state's waters. This information will support future revisions in resource assessments and management practices. This rule lays out the basic framework for the management cycle depicted in Figure 1. The rule first establishes the overall integrated water policies that will govern water management decisions in the state. The rule then creates the information programs that will support water management decisions. The next sections detail the water quantity and water quality management practices that may be employed on a statewide or regional basis. Finally, the rule establishes the regional water planning process, through which the majority of water management practices will be implemented. 760-1-1-.01 Purpose (1) Findings. In promulgating this rule, the Council declares the following: a. Georgia's surface waters have assimilative and water supply capacities that govern their use for in-stream and off-stream purposes. Georgia's groundwaters have similar capacities that govern their use. Exceeding these capacities, or supplementing them in ways that foreclose opportunities for other users and uses, is likely to have detrimental effects on current and future users and on the health and wellbeing of Georgians and natural systems. b. Water uses, wastewater discharges and runoff in one water source affect the assimilative and water supply capacities of hydrologically connected water sources. c. Water use refers to the particular purposes or end uses for which water is employed, whether in-stream, off-stream or pumped from an aquifer. Water use includes human consumption, irrigation and other farm uses, industrial and commercial production, wastewater assimilation, recreation, hydropower, habitat maintenance and species protection, among others. Water users refers to those using the water such as water utilities, homeowners, farmers, industries, and commercial businesses. d. Water quality and quantity and surface and groundwater are interrelated and require integrated planning as well as reasonable and efficient use. e. In order to support the state's economy, protect public health and natural systems, and enhance citizens' quality of life, Georgia must protect the ability of our water resources to meet needs for water supply and assimilation of wastewater. (2) The purpose of this rule, as stated by O.C.G.A. 125-522(a), is to develop a plan for Georgia to manage water resources in a sustainable manner to support the state's economy, to protect public health and natural systems, and to enhance the quality of life for all citizens. These regulations include statewide policies and management practices as well as procedures for selecting and implementing region- and resourcespecific management practices. 760-1-1-.02 Definitions All terms used in this chapter are defined herein: 1) "Assimilative capacity" is the amount of contaminant load that can be discharged to a specific waterbody without exceeding water quality standards or criteria. Assimilative capacity is used to define the ability of a waterbody to naturally absorb and use a discharged substance without water quality becoming impaired or aquatic life being harmed. 2) "Consumptive use" is the difference between the total water withdrawn from and the water returned to an individual water resource. 3) "Consumptive use budget" is the water available from a water source in a dry year, beyond the quantities needed to meet in-aquifer needs or downstream flow regime requirements. Consumptive use budget amounts may be increased through either selected modifications of the source or supplementing the source. 4) "Council" means the Water Council. 5) "Director"is the Director of the Environmental Protection Division of the Department of Natural Resources. 6) "Division" means the Environmental Protection Division of the Department of Natural Resources. 7) "Effluent limitation" means any restriction or prohibition established by the Director on quantities, rates, or concentrations, or a combination thereof, of chemical, physical, biological, or other constituents which are discharged into the waters of the State. 8) "Flow regime" is a description of the pattern of flow variability for an individual surface water source. Flow regime involves the magnitude, timing, duration, frequency and rate of water movement. 9) "Green Infrastructure" is an interconnected network of protected land, water, and other open spaces that supports native species, maintains natural ecological processes, sustains air and water resources, and contributes to the health and quality of life for Georgia's communities and people. In the context of stormwater management, green infrastructure refers to those 50 Georgia's Water Resources: A Blueprint for the Future systems and practices that use or mimic natural processes to facilitate stormwater infiltration, evapotranspiration (the return of water to the atmosphere either through evaporation or by plants), or reuse on-site. 10) "Human use" refers to all ways in which water is employed for public health and human consumption,including agricultural and industrial productivity, recreational, municipal, and commercial purposes. 11) "Impervious surface" means any surface such as pavement, roofs, roadways or others surface material that water does not permeate. 12) "Interbasin transfer" is a withdrawal or diversion in which water used is returned to a different basin than the one from which it was withdrawn or diverted. 13) "Low impact development" is a comprehensive land planning and engineering design approach to stormwater management that attempts to mimic a site's pre-development hydrology by using techniques that filter, store, and detain runoff close to its source and aid in infiltration and evaporation. 14) "Management practices" are reasonable methods, considering available technology and economic factors, for managing water demand, water supply, return of water to surface water sources, and prevention and control of pollution of the waters of the state. 15) "Non-point source pollution" is diffuse contamination including sediment, litter, bacteria, pesticides, fertilizers, metals, oils, grease, industrial chemicals and other pollutants entering bodies of water. Non-point source pollution may be transmitted by stormwater runoff, precipitation, atmospheric deposition, drainage, and/or seepage. Stormwater itself may also detrimentally alter a stream's hydrology, flow rate, temperature, and other physical and biological characteristics. 16) "On-site sewage management system," or "system(s)," means a sewage management system other than a public or community sewage treatment system that serves one or more buildings, mobile homes, recreational vehicles, residences, or other facilities designed or used for human occupancy or congregation. Such term shall include, without limitation, conventional and chamber septic tank systems, privies, and experimental and alternative on-site sewage management systems that are designed to be physically incapable of a surface discharge of effluent that may be approved by the Department of Human Resources. 17) "Permit holders" means those persons or entities that have been issued a signed permit by the Director to supply drinking water, withdraw surface or ground water, or discharge treated wastewater or stormwater. 18) "Pointsourcepollution"iscontaminationthatemanates from discharges of treated wastewater or stormwater regulated under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES). 19) "Reclaimed water" is wastewater that has received treatment to urban water reuse standards, meets the treatment criteria specified in EPD's reuse guidelines, and is utilized at a reuse area or is sent to a designated user for reuse. Reclaimed water can include municipal wastewater, industrial wastewater, or treated effluent. 20) "Septage" means a waste that is a fluid mixture of partially treated or untreated sewage solids, liquids and sludge of human or domestic waste, present in or pumped from septic tanks, malfunctioning on-site sewage management systems, grease traps or privies. 21) "Stormwater" is water originating from precipitation, snowmelt or irrigation that does not soak into the ground and therefore travels over land or via conveyance (natural or artificial) to enter surface water. 22) "Sustainable" means use that can be continued with minimal long-term effect on the environment; using a resource so that it is not depleted or permanently damaged. 23) "Sustainable yield" is the amount of water a source can supply for current and future consumption without causing injury or detriment to other users, or without causing unacceptable alteration of the physical, biological, or chemical integrity of the water source. Sustainable yield can be increased through selected modification of the source. 24) "Water conservation" is the beneficial reduction of water use, water waste, and water loss. Water conservation involves both water efficiency and water reuse. 25) Water Council" is the coordinating committee composed of 14 individuals, established by O.C.G.A. 125-524, representing the Georgia Legislature, State officials, and the public, whose responsibility it is to recommend a comprehensive statewide water management plan to the General Assembly 26) "Water permit" includes any permit administered or issued by the EPD related to water or watershed protection, including drinking water supply, surface or ground water withdrawal, wastewater discharge, and stormwater. 27) "Water planning region" is a geo/politically defined area that includes one or more water quantity and/or quality resources as defined by the Director 28) "Water reuse" is the use of reclaimed water as a substitute for another generally higher quality water source. Reclaimed water can be reused for the beneficial irrigation of areas that may be accessible to the public (such as golf courses, residential and commercial landscaping, parks, athletic fields, roadway medians, and landscapes) and for other beneficial uses such as cooling towers, concrete mixing, and car washes. 29) "Water resource" is a source of water that is useful or potentially useful for agricultural, industrial, household, recreational, or environmental activities. 30) "Water use efficiency" generally addresses how efficiently water is used or the act of achieving a water use function with the minimal amount of water possible. 51 EPD's Draft Submission to the Water Council, June 28th, 2007 Integrated Water Policy Throughout Georgia's history, we have used the state's water resources for a wide variety of off-stream purposes. Rivers and streams have also served as receptacles for our wastewater. While these two types of water use are interrelated, the state has not regulated water withdrawals and wastewater discharges in an integrated fashion. Historically, our regulatory decisions on the capability of sources to support water withdrawals have not considered how those withdrawals may affect water quality. Likewise, when making decisions about use of land application wastewater treatment practices, we have failed to consider how such practices affect the flow regimes of streams that would have received the water had we required a stream discharge instead. We continue to make decisions regarding the location of discharges of treated wastewater without considering whether the water will be returned to the same source from which it was withdrawn. The disconnection between the regulation of water quantity and water quality is largely a result of disconnected water polices. Our water quality policies have historically been driven by federal legislative mandates and programs, while our water quantity policies have emanated from state legislation. The water management challenges Georgia will face as it continues along a path of vibrant economic and population growth in the decades ahead will require the integration of water policies. This rule establishes an integrated water policy based on the premise that our water resources have certain capacities to provide water for off-stream uses and to assimilate pollution, and that water withdrawals can and do affect other water users. We must consider the full impacts of water management decisions, and employ management practices that can mitigate those impacts. For example, when a decision is made to use septic tanks, which do not return water to its source in a timely manner, consideration must be given to the effect of that choice on water quantity downstream. Similarly, it is important to consider how increased water withdrawals may facilitate land use decisions that in turn cause significant increases in pollution. Georgia's water resources have certain capacities that govern their use. The integrated water policy also recognizes that these capacities can, under some circumstances, be supplemented in a sustainable manner, provided that is done following specific criteria to ensure that opportunities for other uses and users are not foreclosed. Criteria for specific management practices are included in the rule. Barring sustainable supplementation, exceeding the capacities that govern the use of water resources is likely to have detrimental effects on current and/or future users and on the health and well-being of Georgians and/or natural systems. In concert with a comprehensive consideration of the myriad effects of water quantity decisions, the State of Georgia will manage consumptive uses of water from surface water and groundwater sources to ensure that sufficient amounts remain to allow all users and uses present and future the opportunity to benefit from the values and opportunities provided by the resources. Likewise, in concert with a comprehensive consideration of the myriad effects of water quality decisions, the State of Georgia will manage point and non-point source pollution to Georgia's waters on a watershed basis to ensure the physical, chemical and biological integrity of those waters and maintain assimilative capacity, now and in the future. This requires protecting waters that currently meet water quality standards and restoring waters whose physical, chemical, or biological integrity are impaired. This policy is predicated on the notion that use of the waters of the state must be "reasonable." The legal doctrine of reasonable use guides use of a common resource by riparian owners and has long been the foundation of water management in Georgia. Such reasonable use must be accomplished in a manner that does not unduly foreclose opportunities for other users and uses of the resource. The first steps in implementing the integrated water policy are the water resource assessment steps detailed in section 760-11-.06 of this rule. Once the capacities of water resources have been determined and current and forecasted uses quantified, an array of management practices may be applied to ensure use of each source without unacceptable adverse consequences. 760-1-1-.03 Integrated Water Policy (1) Findings. In promulgating this rule, the Council declares the following: a. Georgia's economic well-being, the health and welfare of its citizens, and the diversity and health of its natural environment is dependent on the availability of clean water in the rivers, streams, lakes, wetlands, estuaries, coastal waters and groundwaters of the state. b. Water resources in Georgia will be managed in a manner that recognizes the importance of clean water, provides for the protection and/or restoration of water quality, embraces the values and opportunities provided by historic flow patterns, and maintains use of surface waters, groundwaters, and assimilative capacity for current and future uses and users. c. The effective management of Georgia's water resources requires a thorough scientific understanding of the quantity and quality of available surface and groundwater and the extent to which available supplies will support current and future uses and users. d. In accordance with O.C.G.A. 12-5-522(b)(5), water quality and quantity and surface and groundwater are interrelated and require integrated planning. (2) When permitting water withdrawals and discharges of pollutants in accordance with O.C.G.A. 12-5-31, 125-30(a) and 12-5-30(b), in addition to consideration of sections 391-3-6-.06 and 391-3-6-.07, the Director shall consider the extent to which such permits, if issued, will influence the amounts and timing of waters returning to streams or other waters; the character, amounts and timing of flow of pollutants to streams or other waters; 52 Georgia's Water Resources: A Blueprint for the Future and the implications these considerations may have on the continued sustainable use and physical, chemical, and biological integrity of affected waters. The Director may place appropriate conditions in said permits to reflect full evaluation of such considerations. Water Quantity Policy The water quantity policy is to manage the consumptive use of water on a watershed basis so that sufficient amounts remain within the source to allow all users and uses present and future the opportunity to benefit from the values and opportunities provided by the resources. Water use is consumptive when water is removed from the water source and is not returned. Consideration of consumptive use, instead of water withdrawals, can more clearly show how water uses in some areas affect the water availability in other points within the water source and at points hydrologically connected to the source. The cumulative consumption from a water source can be quantified and compared with the source's sustainable yield. Managing the consumptive use from a particular water source requires defining its sustainable yield or its consumptive use budget. Once that quantity is defined, a plan can be developed to ensure that consumptive use stays within the sustainable yield or consumptive use budget for that water source. This approach helps to ensure that water consumed from a source in one area will not preclude water uses in other hydrologically connected waters. This policy reflects the shared nature of water resources. On the state level, the Environmental Protection Division (EPD) would implement management of consumptive use through its current statutory authority to issue water withdrawal permits. The water resource assessment activities detailed in section 7601-1-.06 of this rule would lay the foundation for management of consumptive use. The resource assessment would define hydrologic units and identify the geographic boundaries from which a water source derives its waters (i.e., sub-basins or watersheds, aquifers). Such boundaries may be coincidental with political boundaries, but most often are not. The next step would be to determine the sustainable yield of each water source. Sustainable yield determinations would be based on dry year conditions, so that the plans are able to prepare for the worst case scenario. For surface waters, flows will generally be higher in normal and wet years. A similar comprehensive accounting of the yields for all aquifers in Georgia is likely to be extraordinarily expensive, time consuming, and may not produce results that are equally useful for each aquifer or overlying geographic area. Therefore, in deciding where and when to apply capital to this task, we must consider the functional characteristics of the aquifer, existing evidence of adverse affects due to withdrawals from the aquifer, and whether forecasts suggest significant increases in demands placed on that aquifer in the years ahead. While the process to be employed to determine sustainable yield of a given aquifer must be fundamentally the same across the state, this approach will allow priorities and financial resources to be properly placed. The policy also requires assessment of current and future needs for consumptive use of water. Taken together, these assessments would allow identification of gaps between water needs and the sustainable water yields expected to be available under dryyear conditions. These assessments would support selection of management practices used to meet current and future needs while protecting resource users and uses. This policy provides flexibility in the use of an array of water quantity management practices. Management practices are addressed in greater detail in sections 760-1-1-.07 through 760-1-1-.13 of this rule. Water conservation, which can be the most economically efficient way of meeting water needs, will be a priority management practice for implementation across the state. 760-1-1-.04 Water Quantity Policy (1) Water resources in Georgia will be managed in a manner that recognizes the values and opportunities provided by historic flow patterns. The flow pattern in Georgia's rivers and streams varies widely across the state, and the opportunities for off-stream and in-stream uses of water that are supported by these flow patterns likewise varies across the state. Historic flow patterns in different rivers and streams, and the opportunities for off-stream and instream water use that they afford, are of prime importance in making water management decisions. (2) The State of Georgia will manage consumptive uses of water, alterations of flows through storage, and other actions that affect flow regimes, to ensure that sufficient amounts remain to allow all users and uses present and future the opportunity to benefit from the values and opportunities provided by the resources. (3) In accordance with O.C.G.A. 12-5-31(g) and section 391-3-6-.07 regarding factors to be considered by the Division in evaluating applications for withdrawals from surface water sources, the Division shall evaluate the extent to which the cumulative present and forecasted consumptive uses of surface water can be supplied within the sustainable yield of that source. The Division will determine the sustainable yield of surface water sources in accordance with section 760-1-1-.06 of this rule. (4) In accordance with O.C.G.A. 12-596(d) regarding factors to be considered by the Division in evaluating applications for groundwater withdrawal permits, and in concert with Department of Natural Resources rule pertaining thereto, the Division shall evaluate the extent to which the cumulative present and forecasted consumptive uses of groundwater can be supplied within the sustainable yield of groundwater sources. The sustainable yield of groundwater sources shall be determined in accordance with section 760-1-1-.06 of this plan. a. The Director may determine that, for some groundwater sources, there is not sufficient evidence to suggest that increased use will result in 53 EPD's Draft Submission to the Water Council, June 28th, 2007 unacceptable adverse impacts on current or future uses of that source and that it is not practical to determine the sustainable yield of that source within reasonable time and cost constraints. The Director may allow increased use of these groundwater sources without a sustainable yield determination. Use of these sources will be subject to results of recurrent monitoring of aquifer response to increased withdrawals. (5) Subsequent to the Division's determination of the sustainable yield of a water source, the Division shall provide that determination as guidance for production of a water development and conservation plan for the planning region in which that source lies, in accordance with O.C.G.A. 12-5-31(h) and 12-5-96(e). Water Quality Policy Pollutants are discharged to the state's surface waters each day in treated wastewater, known as point source pollution. Georgia has been managing these wastewater treatment plant discharges for more than 35 years, and doing so with a high degree of success. Far more contamination is washed into rivers and streams by urban runoff after storm events and agricultural runoff (i.e., non-point source pollution). As our population grows and more land is converted to urban uses, the amounts of pollutants we send to our streams via urban runoff will likely dramatically increase unless we begin to manage stormwater and land disturbance more effectively. Our streams and rivers are able to assimilate a portion of the pollution they receive. However, their ability to assimilate pollutants is limited. In Georgia, there are over 6,000 miles of streams that do not meet water quality standards. Most impairments are caused by non-point source pollution. National and state water quality protection policies do not allow discharges to exceed the assimilative capacities of water. The recommended water quality policy is to protect clean water, restore impaired waters, and maintain assimilative capacity for current and future users. Clean water and its assimilative capacity provide values and opportunities to current and future Georgians. Protecting those values and opportunities will require that we use appropriate standards in assessing the status and condition of Georgia's waters. It will also require a better understanding of the assimilative capacity of Georgia's waters, and of the management practices that can be implemented to assure point and non-point source discharges do not exceed those assimilative capacities or cause water quality violations. To fully implement the proposed water quality policy, wasteload allocation procedures for point source discharges will be updated to assess current and future needs for assimilative capacity on a watershed basis and to identify gaps between assimilative capacity needs and the assimilative capacity available to meet those needs. The Division will establish new water quality standards for surface waters, and is currently considering revisions in the fecal coliform and dissolved oxygen standards. The Division will also assess the ways in which activities on land, 54 and the ways in which land is developed, affect water quality and assimilative capacity. In many areas across the state, growth and urbanization of rural lands is happening faster than state and local governments are able to develop and implement the management practices required to minimize non-point source water pollution and maintain assimilative capacity. Any gap between forecasted needs for assimilative capacity and the assimilative capacity that is available will be addressed by the selection of appropriate management practices. These practices will have the goals of managing assimilative capacity on a watershed basis, restoring impaired waters, and/or to protecting waters that are not impaired. As with the water quantity policy, the water quality management practices would be implemented at a local level to address the unique conditions affecting water quality in specific areas. 760-1-1-.05 Water Quality Policy (1) Water resources in Georgia will be managed in a manner that provides for the protection of water quality, the restoration of impaired waters and the management of assimilative capacity for current and future uses and users. (2) In accordance with O.C.G.A. 12-5-23(c)(9), the Director will establish the surface water quality standards necessary to ensure that water use classifications and water quality criteria are adequate to protect public health and maintain or restore the physical, chemical and biological integrity of the of the state's waters, now and in the future. (3) In accordance with O.C.G.A. 12-5-23-(c)(2), 12-5-30(a), and 12-5-30-(b), the Director will manage pollution to Georgia's waters to protect public health and to ensure the physical, chemical and biological integrity of those waters, now and in the future. This requires the implementation of management practices to protect waters that currently attain water quality standards and restore waters whose physical, chemical, or biological integrity are impaired. (4)In accordance with O.C.G.A. 12-5-23-(c)(2), 12-5-30-(a), and 12-5-30-(b), the Director shall manage assimilative capacity on a watershed basis through effluent limitations based on forecasts of future discharge needs within a watershed, in accordance with section 760-1-1.06(4) of this rule. (5) Subsequent to the Division's determination of the effluent limitations for pollutant discharges in a watershed, the Division shall provide those effluent limitations as guidance for production of a water development and conservation plan for the planning region in which that watershed lies. Following adoption of a water development and conservation plan, the Director shall incorporate specific effluent limitations in permits for individual pollutant dischargers in the water planning region. Georgia's Water Resources: A Blueprint for the Future Water Resource Assessment Georgia has more than 70,000 miles of streams, 400,000 acres of lakes, 4,500,000 acres of freshwater wetlands, 384,000 acres of tidal wetlands, 854 square miles of estuaries, 100 miles of coastline, and an enormous amount of water in aquifers. Additionally, over the course of an average year Georgia will receive fifty inches of precipitation. These waters are used in a wide variety of ways, and are affected by a number of human activities. Assessing these resources and their condition, as well as determining what factors influence our ability to utilize these resources in a sustainable manner, is vital to effective water management. Many current water management efforts, such as source water protection plans and watershed protection plans, have water resource assessment components. While varied, the information gathered as a part of these efforts provides a foundation on which to base our management of those resources. To ensure that long-term needs for water are met in a sustainable manner, however, we must build on existing data with a systematic assessment of water availability and assimilative capacity. This assessment must be statewide, but can best be conducted at the regional level. In the last several decades, Georgia has experienced significant economic growth and development. Georgia is one of the fastest growing states in the nation and as Georgia grows, the demand for water and assimilative capacity will increase. In addition, in the past two decades, Georgia experienced the two worst droughts on record and major flooding, including a one hundred year flood and a five hundred year flood. The spring of 2007 was one of the driest on record and many parts of the state entered the dry summer season with a significant rainfall deficit. In light of these extremes, Georgians are increasingly aware of the need for better information on the capacities of our water resources to assist in regional planning and identification of the practices that can effectively manage those resources in a sustainable manner. If Georgia is to develop water resource plans that will allow continued sustainable use and enjoyment of our water resources, the state must first define the capabilities of these water resources. These resource capabilities must be defined in terms of the ability of each water resource to support additional water withdrawals and to safely assimilate larger masses of pollutants without foreclosing opportunities for other users and uses of the resource. Assessment of resource capacity will require compilation of a substantial information base, a comprehensive monitoring program, and a well-coordinated system for information management. This system would include the compilation of existing data, the coordination and integration of ongoing governmental and voluntary monitoring programs, the identification of gaps in current information and the development of a program to fill the gaps. The information collected and analyzed for these resource assessments must also be available to state agencies and other entities involved in planning and implementing resource management plans, as well as to the general public. 760-1-1-.06 Assessing the Status and Condition of Georgia's Water Resources (1) Findings. In promulgating this rule, the Council declares the following: a. In accordance with O.C.G.A. 12-5-522(b)(4), the effective management of Georgia's water resources requires a sound scientific foundation which includes a scientific understanding of the condition of the water resources, in terms of the quantity of water available to support current and future in-stream and off-stream uses and the capacity of the water resources to assimilate pollution. b. In accordance with O.C.G.A. 12-5-522(b)(6), a comprehensive and accessible database must be developed to provide sound scientific and technical information upon which effective water resource management decisions can be based. c. Georgia must invest additional resources to coordinate current monitoring efforts and expand monitoring as needed for a statewide assessment of the condition and capacities of Georgia's water resources. This information will support regional planning and comprehensive water management. (2) In accordance with the findings above and with O.C.G.A. 12-5-23(c)(4), the Director will develop a assessment plan and budget that will direct the collection of the scientific data and information necessary to support implementation of the comprehensive statewide water management plan. This assessment plan will include provisions for: a. The compilation of existing data; b. The coordination and integration of ongoing governmental, industry, and volunteer monitoring programs, including monitoring required by permits; c. The identification of gaps in current monitoring and data management programs; and d. The development of a monitoring and data management program to fill said gaps. (3) Water Quantity Assessments a. In accordance with O.C.G.A. 12-5-522 (b) and paragraph (2) above, the Director shall implement a monitoring program to document surface water flows and groundwater levels. Water resources management efforts must have a sound scientific foundation. Assessment of the quantity of water available to support current and future in-stream and off-stream uses requires enhanced information on surface water flows and groundwater levels. b. As provided in O.C.G.A. 12-5-31and 12-596, the Director, in determining whether to issue a surface water or groundwater withdrawal permit, is authorized to assess the reasonableness of the water need. In concert with this withdrawal permitting authority, the Director shall determine the extent 55 EPD's Draft Submission to the Water Council, June 28th, 2007 to which each water source is capable of yielding water while preserving water-related opportunities for present and future uses of the water source and water sources that are hydrologically connected. This determination of sustainable yield from water sources shall be known as water quantity resource assessment, and shall be source-specific. c. In completing any water quantity resource assessment for any water source, the Director shall define the aggregate geographic boundaries from which water naturally accrues to that water resource. d. In completing a water quantity resource assessment for any water source, the Director shall determine the extent to which any specific water source contributes to the flow regimes of hydrologically connected adjoining water sources, so as to ensure preservation of opportunities for other water users and uses. In determining flow support from a water source to other hydrologically connected water resources, the Director will consider the entire history of flows, natural and altered, in the connected water resources, and the flow contributions the source in question has historically made to the hydrologically connected water resources. e. In completing any water quantity resource assessment for any water source, the Director shall consider the extent to which the water withdrawn from a water source will be, after reasonable use, returned to the water source within a time frame that allows contemporary users of that water source, and users of hydrologically connected adjoining water sources, to make corresponding reasonable use of that returned water. In considering the extent to which withdrawn water is returned to the water source, the Director shall evaluate the impact of on-site sewage disposal systems, land application systems, transfers of withdrawn waters to sources that are not by nature hydrologically connected to the subject source, and other water management practices that may impact the quantity and timing of return flows. f. In completing any water quantity resource assessment for a water source, the Director shall consider the extent to which prior water development and management practices have affected the sustainable yield of a source. The Director shall evaluate the impact of the size and operational characteristics of water storage projects, the discharge characteristics of waters from interbasin transfers, and other current water management practices that have altered the natural sustainable yield of the source. g. In completing water quantity assessments, a distinction will be made between the flow regime requirements related to the sustainable yield of a water source and the in-stream flow conditions applied to a surface water withdrawal permit. Instream flow conditions for surface water withdrawal permits will be determined pursuant to the instream flow protection strategy adopted by the Department of Natural Resources Board on May 23, 2001, while the flow regime requirements related to the sustainable yield of a water source will be evaluated in the water quantity assessment for that water source. (4) Water Quality Assessments a. In accordance with O.C.G.A. 12-5-23(c)(4) and paragraph (2) above, the Director will implement a monitoring program to survey the waters of the state to assess water quality conditions and compliance with water quality standards. b. In accordance with O.C.G.A. 12-5-23(c)(2) the Director will act in the interest of the people to protect the waters of the state and restore waters found to be impaired. c. In accordance with O.C.G.A. 12-5-30(a), 12-530(b), and 12-5-30(c), any person desiring to operate facilities that will result in the discharge of pollutants into the waters of the state is required to obtain a permit from the Director to make such discharge. The Director is authorized to issue permits upon the condition that discharges meet or will meet all water quality standards. In accordance with O.C.G.A. 12-5-30(c) the Director is authorized to require as conditions in permits the achievement of effluent limitations to ensure compliance with water quality standards. d. The Director shall define the hydrologic boundaries or watersheds for the determination of effluent limitations. e. Local governments and water users in the watershed shall be responsible for providing forecasts that quantify future discharge needs in terms of effluent flow and discharge location. Such flow forecasts shall be based on guidelines established by the Director. f. The Director shall establish effluent limitations considering the present and future discharge needs to waters that are hydrologically connected by nature. Waters that are hydrologically connected by nature may be called watersheds. Water Quantity Management Practices This plan requires water users within defined water planning regions to collectively plan for the sustainable future use of the water resources that serve that planning region. The state will establish the water planning regions according to the rules in the Regional Planning section, and will provide regions with the water resource assessments for the sources within that area. The regional water development and conservation plans will use the water resource assessments, in combination with forecasts of future water demands, to identify the array of water management actions and activities (i.e., `water quantity 56 Georgia's Water Resources: A Blueprint for the Future management practices') that can be implemented to ensure that water demands are met in a sustainable manner. These management practices will largely address the management of consumptive use of water. Managing consumptive use of a water source involves the integrated management of demands from that source, returns to that source, and actions taken to supplement the supply that source provides. Managing consumptive use also requires that we consider other implications of consumption, including the water quality implications. There are innumerable ways to combine sets of demand, return, and supply supplementation practices to ensure that future consumption from a water source does not exceed the capability of that source, and to ensure that proper attention has been given to protecting and preserving water quality. The regional plan development process will allow and encourage flexibility in selecting these management practices, as well as innovation in response to new information and changing conditions. A variety of water quantity management practices can be implemented on both the state and local levels to ensure that the consumptive use of surface water and groundwater is optimized. Withdrawals can be effectively managed primarily through conservation measures including conservation water rates, limiting outdoor watering, and regular audits of public water and irrigation systems. Encouraging the use of centralized sewer systems and discouraging the use of individual septic tanks and land application systems, where consistent with water quality conditions, can greatly increase the amount of water we return to surface water sources, so that withdrawals will have less of an impact on downstream flows. When water users approach the sustainable yield of a water source and conservation and return efforts have been exhausted, users of that particular water source could augment their water supplies through careful use of a number of practices for which criteria have been promulgated by this rule or in current DNR rules. Collectively, these criteria are intended to ensure use of water supply management practices do not foreclose opportunities for reasonable use by others. The first priority for implementation must be conservationrelated water management practices that effectively reduce our water demands. Current statewide water conservation requirements can be dramatically enhanced. While the state encourages the development of conservation plans, the state does not require that these plans be implemented. Even when conservation plans are voluntarily implemented by the water user, the results are not always evaluated for their effectiveness. In addition, conservation plans do not equitably address all water use sectors, including municipal, agricultural, and industrial. The state must develop a `toolbox' of water conservation practices that can help Georgians meet conservation goals. These practices will include non-discretionary practices that are required by permittees and a variety of discretionary practices that may be beneficial in some geographic areas and less beneficial in others. Discretionary practices can be encouraged by incentives, education and outreach, and other mechanisms. As water conservation practices are implemented, water users will also implement the other water quantity management practices specified in the region's water development and conservation plan. 760-1-1-.07 Water Quantity Management Practices (1) The purpose of water quantity management practices is to manage the consumptive use of water from a given source in a sustainable manner by managing demand and returns or, when it can be done without foreclosing opportunities for other users and uses, to supplement the sustainable yield of a water source. (2) A variety of water quantity management practices may be implemented to manage and use water resources in conformity with Georgia's integrated water policy (section 760-1-1-.03). These practices include but are not limited to: a. Water demand management practices, including water conservation and water reuse; b. Water return management practices, including optimal management of centralized wastewater treatment facilities and management of the number and location of septic systems and land application systems; and c. Water supply management practices, including the construction of water supply reservoirs and adoption of reservoir management policies that optimize water supply storage and maintain necessary flow regimes, pursuant to these rules; interbasin transfers, so long as the transfers protect meet the criteria in this rule; and aquifer storage and recovery. Desalination may be an important water supply management practice in the future.These practices are addressed in sections 760-1-1-.08 through 760-1-1-.10. (3) Water conservation will be the priority water quantity management practice implemented to help meet water needs in all areas of the state, and shall be practiced by all water use sectors. (4) Other practices shall be implemented as consistent with the regional water development and conservation plan adopted by the Division, pursuant to section 7601-1-.14. 760-1-1-.08 Water Demand Management Practices (1) Findings. In promulgating this rule, the Water Council declares the following: a. Water conservation is an effective and efficient management practice to meet the needs of all water users in the state. In accordance with section 391-3-6-.07(4)(b)(8)(ix), water conservation must be incorporated into long-term water demand and supply planning. Furthermore, measurable progress toward more efficient use of water and water conservation goals is critical to the health and viability of Georgia's water resources. b. Water reuse, or the use of reclaimed water as a substitute for another, generally higher quality water source, is a viable water management practice that 57 EPD's Draft Submission to the Water Council, June 28th, 2007 may help sustain Georgia's water resources. Water reuse shall be permitted and managed following the provisions of section 391-3-6.11 and EPD's guidelines for Water Reclamation and Urban Water Reuse (revised February 20, 2002 and any subsequent revisions). (2) Water Conservation a. The Division shall develop a water conservation implementation plan which shall include, but not be limited to, the following elements: i. Goals for water conservation and water use efficiency; ii. Guidance for required water conservation practices for each water use sector; iii. State efforts to help achieve water conservation goals; iv. Funding to help achieve goals for water conservation and water use efficiency; v. Timelines for plan implementation and update; and vi. Such other elements as are reasonably necessary to carry out the purposes of Georgia law. b. In compliance with O.C.G.A. 12-5-31(d) and 12-596(a)(2), prior to the issuance of withdrawal permits or permit modifications for non-farm uses, applicants will be required to demonstrate progress toward water conservation goals or water efficiency standards identified in the water conservation implementation plan, or demonstrate the implementation of the appropriate water conservation practices listed in this section as well as sections 391-3-6-.07(4) and 391-3-2-.04(11). c. An applicant for a new or modified water withdrawal permit for non-farm uses shall develop a water conservation plan in accordance with sections 391-36-.07 and 391-3-2-.04(11). i. If the applicant does not have an existing service area or operation, the applicant must develop a water conservation plan including the practices listed in this section or practices determined to be acceptable in the water conservation implementation plan. The applicant must also develop an implementation schedule for all water conservation practices. ii. If an applicant has an existing service area or operation, the applicant may demonstrate, through methods approved by the Director, acceptable water conservation results and/or compliance with water use efficiency standards or goals as identified in the water conservation implementation plan. Acceptable demonstration may be provided in lieu of the need to implement the practices listed in this section. iii. If an applicant has an existing service area or operation, and is unable to demonstrate water 58 conservation results and/or compliance with water use efficiency standards or goals, the applicant must demonstrate the implementation of the water conservation practices listed in this section prior to the issuance of withdrawal permits. d. Municipal and private water utilities and water providers shall implement the following water conservation practices. i. Conduct regular water system audit (from withdrawal to meter); ii. Implement a tiered conservation-oriented rate structure for all customers and adopt water bills that clearly reflect consumer usage; iii. Adopt a water loss control program or other water loss control program approved by the Director; iv. In compliance with sections 391-3-5-.06(a)(1)&(2), meter all water uses (current and future), including all outdoor water uses that are not currently metered (i.e. public uses); v. Adopt a meter calibration, repair, and replacement program; vi. Require new multi-family residential buildings to install individual meters or report individual water usage; vii. In compliance with section 391-3-30, enforce current outdoor water use schedule; viii. Meter all uses of reclaimed reuse water and report use on a regular basis following guidance issued by the Director; ix. Conduct reuse feasibility studies, when no such study has been conducted in the past five years; and x. Update water conservation plans on a regular basis, following guidance issued by the Director, to reflect new and changing circumstances in water management. e. Industrial water withdrawal permittees or permit applicants shall implement the following water conservation practices: i. Conduct facility-specific water audits every three years or when major process changes occur, which ever happens first, to include: (1) In-process reuse capability (i.e. condensate recovery); (2) Cross-process reuse capability (i.e. using process water in other processes); (3) Reusing treated wastewater in-house (end-ofpipe reuse); (4) Potential of taking treated wastewater from another source. Georgia's Water Resources: A Blueprint for the Future ii. Measure all water use not currently measured; iii. Measure all uses of reclaimed reuse or recycled water and report use on a regular basis following guidance issued by the Director; iv. Adopt maintenance and repair program for pipelines, intakes and discharge structures; v. Install rain or moisture sensor shut-off on devices on new and existing irrigation systems; vi. Irrigate landscape in compliance with the current outdoor water use schedule defined in section 391-3-30; vii. Conduct reuse feasibility studies, if no such study has been conducted over the past 5 years; and viii. Update water conservation plans on a regular basis, following guidance issued by the Director, to reflect new and changing circumstances in water management. f. Water withdrawal permit holders or drinking water providers submitting annual reports on non-farm water use to the Division in accordance with sections 391-3-6-.07(4)(viii), 391-3-6-.07(15)(e) and 3913-5-.17(7) shall include in such reports data and information regarding levels of water efficiency and where applicable, progress toward water conservation goals and/or efficiency standards, using guidance provided by the Division. g. As required in section 391-3-6-.07(4)(vii), for nonfarm water use, progress reports outlining efforts to conserve water and reduce water loss shall be submitted to the Division on a regular basis and shall include measurable improvements related to water use efficiency and reduction in water loss and waste, following guidance by the Director and using a format and/or forms provided by the Division. h. The following shall be provided by the permit holders and/or applicants for non-farm water use and considered by the Director when evaluating the implementation of water conservation practices, compliance with water efficiency standards, and/or progress toward water conservation goals: i. Measurable outcomes in terms of reduced or maintained water production or usage. Outcomes may be expressed on a per capita, per connection, total system, or other basis as approved by the Director; ii. Impact any water conservation practices or programs have on the consumptive use of water for that water planning region; iii. A schedule for implementing water conservation practices or achieving water use efficiency goals; iv. Feasible and efficient re-use of reclaimed water as an alternative for another generally higher quality water source; and v. Other considerations, as determined by the Director. i. Through the Georgia Department of Agriculture, the Georgia Soil and Water Conservation Commission, the University of Georgia Cooperative Extension Service, and other partners, entities with farmrelated water use permits, including those for urban agricultural water uses, shall be encouraged to use the most efficient, practicable irrigation practices, as described in the water conservation implementation plan, and to use tillage practices that make the most efficient use of the irrigation water that is applied. 760-1-1-.09 Water Return Management Practices (1) Onsite Sewage Management Systems. a. In promulgating this rule, the Council declares the following: i. The preferred fate of treated wastewater is return to a stream or other surface water body to support other water uses, as consistent with section 391-3-6-.03(2)(b). ii. While the exact quantity will vary with location and other site conditions, a significant portion of the water treated in septic systems is not returned to the water source in a time frame that allows contemporary users of that water source, and users of hydrologically connected adjoining water sources, to make corresponding reasonable use of that returned water. For practical purposes, this temporarily absent water contributes to the cumulative consumptive use in a sub-basin or watershed. iii. Managing the effect of on-site sewage management systems on the quantity of water returned to a water source should be a component of managing consumptive use. b. Regional planning pursuant to section 760-1-1-.14 shall address mechanisms for meeting benchmarks for return flows to individual water sources, following guidance to be provided by the Director. Mechanisms to adjust the future use of septic systems as necessary to meet benchmarks for return flows for a water planning region shall be considered during preparation of regional water development and conservation plans. c. Onsite sewage management systems shall continue to comply with Department of Human Resources rules provided in section, 290-5-26-.05 and Department of Natural Resources rules provided in section 3913-6-.13. d. Use of onsite sewage management systems shall comply with provisions for water quality management practices specified in section 760-1-1-.13 as well as the provisions specified here. 59 EPD's Draft Submission to the Water Council, June 28th, 2007 (2) Land Application Systems. a. In promulgating this rule, the Council declares the following: i. The preferred fate of treated wastewater is return to a stream or other surface water body to support other water uses, as consistent with section 391-3-6-.03(2)(b). ii. A significant portion of the water treated in land application wastewater treatment systems is not returned to the water source in a time frame that allows contemporary users of that water source, and users of hydrologically connected adjoining water sources, to make corresponding reasonable use of that returned water. For practical purposes, this temporarily absent water contributes to the cumulative consumptive use in a sub-basin or watershed. iii. Managing the effect of land application systems on the quantity of water returned to surface water sources should be a component of managing consumptive use. b. The use of land application systems shall conform with benchmarks for return flows to the water source(s) within a water planning region, following guidance provided by the Director and as consistent with section 391-3-6-.03(2)(b). c. Land application systems should be permitted and managed following the provisions of sections 391-36-11, and 391-3-6-.24. (3) Centralized water treatment in Water Pollution Control Plants. a. In promulgating this rule, the Council declares the following: i. Water Pollution Control Plants can be operated so that the water returned to surface sources is maximized. ii. Managing the return of water to surface water sources by Water Pollution Control Plants should be a component of managing consumptive use. iii. Where water quality or quantity considerations dictate the reuse of effluent, the effluent should be used for irrigation, as a replacement for potable water. iv. Water Pollution Control Plants should be permitted and managed following the provisions of section 391-3-6-.06. 760-1-1-.10 Water Supply Management Practices (1) Surface water storage for water supply purposes. a. Finding. In promulgating this rule, the Council declares the following: Water supply reservoirs are an important part of Georgia's water resource infrastructure, and additional surface water storage is likely to be a critical supplement to the natural capacities of streams to meet water supply needs 60 in certain parts of the state. However, a number of factors limit the viability of reservoir sites. In addition, reservoirs can have a variety of negative impacts, including significant changes in flow regimes, alteration of aquatic environments, and loss of freeflowing stream habitat. These changes can impact downstream users as well as in-stream uses. b. The State of Georgia will ensure that new water supply reservoirs are designed, sited, and operated in a sustainable manner that minimizes harm to the environment. c. Regional water planning, as further described in section 760-1-1-.14, shall identify areas where additional storage may be needed to meet water supply demands. This process should include: i. Water demand forecasts. ii. The assessment of water supply alternatives, including implementation of water conservation and reuse practices, and the utilization of alternate sources, including purchasing water from adjacent utilities or water providers and the use of groundwater and existing surface storage. d. The Division will screen the areas identified in regional planning for feasibility. Elements to be considered during the feasibility screening shall include, but will not be limited to, overall forecasted demand for the planning area, potential service areas, and the total storage potential available for that water source. e. In evaluating applications for permits associated with a water supply reservoir, the Director shall consider the factors specified in sections 391-3-5, 391-3-6-.07, and 391-3-8, as well as the following: i. Demonstration of need over a 50-year planning horizon A. Demand forecasts should be based on populations that do not already have supply allocated from other existing or planned projects. B. Assessment of the project's capacity to serve a multi-jurisdictional area C. Use of full yield for water supply. Water supply reservoirs that do not use the full yield for water supply will not be permitted. ii. Full consideration of all water supply alternatives prior to reservoir planning A. Implementation of water conservation and reuse practices; B. Utilization of existing sources, including purchase of water from adjacent utilities or water providers, use of excess capacity in existing wells, and/or use of excess capacity in existing reservoirs; and C. Assessment of alternate sources. iii. Site selection to minimize environmental impacts Georgia's Water Resources: A Blueprint for the Future A. Avoidance of streams or sites that currently provide high quality habitat for aquatic biota B. Siting on tributaries or smaller streams or completely off of a streambed, utilizing pumped storage as needed C. Minimal contribution to fragmentation of the stream system D. Impacts on critical species or habitats in the reservoir pool area and immediately downstream iv. Water supply watershed protection provisions, pursuant to section 391-3-16, including application of criteria by all jurisdictions in the watershed v. Provision of flows to meet in-stream needs pursuant to section 760-1-1-.10(1)(f). vi. Water quality protection provisions f. Reservoirs should be designed and operated to ensure that the volume and timing of flows are provided as necessary to meet in-stream flow needs, as determined by the Director, in segments immediately downstream of such reservoirs. The current in-stream flow strategy, adopted in a policy passed by the Department of Natural Resources Board on May 23, 2001, shall continue to be applied at or just below individual reservoirs and withdrawal points. The Division will continue to build the information base required to adapt these requirements to specific instream flow needs in different regions of the state. (2) Interbasin transfers a. Finding. In promulgating this rule, the Council declares the following: interbasin transfer is a management practice that addresses water supply and/or water quality needs in some parts of the state. However, these transfers may have adverse impacts on water resources in both basins and on opportunities for reasonable water use in the donor basin. b. The State of Georgia shall protect the reasonable use of water in donor basins through the regulation of interbasin transfers. c. Interbasin transfers may be undertaken to meet water needs in areas facing limitations on their water sources, as indicated when the forecasted consumption of water from a specific source approaches the defined sustainable yield, as long as the transfer does not unduly foreclose opportunities for water use in the donor basin. d. Interbasin transfers of raw water shall not be permitted until sustainable yield assessments have been completed for the affected water sources, pursuant to section 760-1-1-.06, and water development and conservation plans have been completed for the affected water planning regions, pursuant to section 760-1-1-.14. e. In evaluating a permit application for a new interbasin transfer, the Director should consider the factors specified in section 391-3-6-.07(14) and the following: Donor basin considerations i. The quantity of the proposed withdrawal and the stream flow of the donor basin, with special consideration for dry years and low flow conditions. ii. The current and reasonably foreseeable future water needs of the donor basin, with special consideration for dry years and low flow conditions iii. Protection of water quality in the donor basin, with special consideration for dry years and low flow conditions iv. Any offsetting increases in flow in the donor basin that may be arranged through permit conditions v. The number of downstream river miles from which water will be diverted as a result of the transfer vi. The connection between surface water and groundwater in the donor basin, and the effect of the proposed transfer on either or both. Receiving basin considerations vii. Determination of whether or not the applicant's proposed use is reasonable, including consideration of whether the applicant has implemented water conservation practices and achieved reasonable water conservation goals. viii. Assessment of the wastewater treatment capacity of the receiving basin. ix. The supply of water presently available to the receiving basin, as well as the estimates of overall current water demand and the reasonable foreseeable future water needs of the receiving basin x. The beneficial impact of any proposed transfer, and the demonstrated capability of the applicant to effectively implement its responsibilities under the requested permit. xi. The impact of the proposed transfer on water conservation. xii. The applicant's efforts to explore all reasonable options for use of reclaimed water and recycling of available sources to meet the needs of the receiving basin. xiii. Assessment of the adequacy of treatment capacity and current water quality conditions. Considerations affecting both basins xiv. The economic feasibility, cost effectiveness, and environmental impacts of the proposed transfer in relation to alternative sources of water supply. 61 EPD's Draft Submission to the Water Council, June 28th, 2007 xv. The cumulative impacts of the current and proposed interbasin transfers in the basin. xvi. The requirements of the state and federal agencies with authority related to water resources. xvii. The availability of water for responding to emergencies, including drought, in the donor basin and the receiving basin. xviii. The impact, whether beneficial or detrimental, on navigation, hydropower or other power generation, fish and wildlife habitats, aesthetics, or recreation. xix. The quantity, quality, location, and timing of water returned to the basin of donor basin, receiving basin, and basins downstream. xx. Climatic conditions xxi. Impact on interstate water use xxii. The cumulative effect on the donor basin and the receiving basin of any water transfer or consumptive use that is authorized or forecasted. xxiii. Such other factors as are reasonably necessary to carry out the purposes of Georgia law. f. Use of interbasin transfers shall comply with the water quality policy specified in section 760-1-1-.05. (3) Aquifer storage and recovery a. In promulgating this rule, the Council declares the following: Aquifer Storage and Recovery (ASR), a process in which water is recharged through a well into an aquifer and later withdrawn, may prove to be a viable way to supplement water availability in some parts of the state. O.C.G.A. 12-5-135 prohibits the injection of surface water into the Floridan Aquifer in any county governed by the Georgia Coastal Zone Management program, created by O.C.G.A 12-5327, until December 31, 2009. b. The State may assess the viability of ASR as a water management practice. Assessment of ASR would include: i. Identification of recharge water sources and aquifers that are potential candidates for ASR recharge. ii. Comparison of the potential cost of ASR to other management practices. iii. Study of the legal issues related to ASR. iv. Environmental assessment including the following: A. Study of the subsurface geology and hydraulic properties of ASR target aquifers, adjacent aquifers, and confining units; mineralogy and chemistry of target aquifer matrices, and the chemistries of recharge water and target aquifer. 62 B. Bench testing and chemical equilibrium modeling to determine how introduction of oxygenated surface water may cause leaching of trace metals and how such leaching could be detrimental to the ASR system. C. Pilot scale testing of an ASR well or wells, permitted according to section 391-3-6-.13 (Underground Injection Control Class V well) to determine the feasibility of ASR and to provide information for the design and operation of an ASR system. D. Quantitative analysis and possibly computer modeling to predict how ASR could affect movement of recharge water within the target aquifer and how water could move between aquifers in complex hydrogeologic regimes. Water Quality Management Practices Georgia's continuing growth will continue to be accompanied by conversion of land cover, more intensive land uses, and significant increases in the volume of pollutants discharged to our waters from both point and non-point sources. If not managed properly, these increases will compromise our ability to beneficially use the state's waters. The State must make a more careful and concerted effort to protect our water from pollution emanating from wastewater discharges and urban and rural runoff. This effort, however, must be flexible enough to address the unique water quality issues in different parts of the state. An array of management practices can be employed statewide and on a watershed basis to restore impaired waters and protect clean waters. Many of these practices are ongoing and will be continued. Ongoing management practices are described briefly below, as are a number of new or enhanced management practices. In addition to the proposed statewide management practices, a number of additional management practices will be needed at the regional and/or local government level. Existing Practices State and local government agencies, regulated entities and individual stakeholders currently implement a watershed approach to water quality protection. This cyclical approach is illustrated in following figure. The state designates uses for each water, such as fishing and recreation. The state also sets criteria that must be met in order for the waters to be classified as supporting the designated use. There are criteria for parameters which indicate the health of the stream, such as pH and dissolved oxygen, and criteria for contaminants, such as pesticides, metals, and fecal coliform bacteria. These standards set goals for Georgia's waters. Water quality monitoring is conducted to assess progress toward those goals. Currently, approximately 20% of the state's waters are tested. Waters found to be exceeding water quality standards are placed on Georgia's list of impaired waters and Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) are prepared for the listed Georgia's Water Resources: A Blueprint for the Future waters. TMDLs are implemented through regulatory permitting processes for point sources of pollution, and voluntary best management practices are used to address non-point sources of pollution. Georgia's Watershed Protection Process Georgia's fourteen major river basins have been divided into five major groups and the monitoring, assessment, impaired waters listing, TMDL development and implementation steps of the watershed approach are implemented for each basin group over a five year period. This five year rotating river basin cycle provides an opportunity to coordinate work over an entire river basin. Each year different activities are ongoing in each of the five major basin groups. This approach to watershed protection will be continued and Georgia will implement the new and/or enhanced water quality management practices described below. Enhanced Practices The proposed new or enhanced management practices address two issues: enhancing water quality standards and monitoring practices and enhancing practices for managing sources of pollution. Standards. Water quality standards and monitoring programs are crucial to the success of Georgia's water planning and protection efforts. Georgia must periodically review water quality standards to ensure that correct standards are in place and that the standards are appropriate for the areas of the state in which they are being applied.The current standards can be substantially improved. For example, the state currently uses one standard for dissolved oxygen for all of the waters of the state. However, the state's waters have naturally varying levels of dissolved oxygen, and the same level that may indicate a problem in one stream may be healthy in another. Some research has also questioned whether the current fecal coliform standards accurately identify public health concerns. In order to create water quality criteria that most accurately identify impaired waters, EPD must make a significant investment in water monitoring. The state also needs to revise the designated uses it currently assigns to surface waters. Currently, the designations for wild and scenic river and outstanding national resource water are extraordinarily stringent, but the designations for fishing are not stringent enough for certain sensitive ecosystems. Additional designated uses would allow the state more flexibility in determining the most appropriate criteria for waters across the state. One of the principal aims of the water quality resource assessments performed by the state will be to gather information to support revisions of water quality standards. Ongoing assessment of the capacities of Georgia's waters will require a comprehensive and consistent monitoring program which can compile substantial information about the condition and assimilative capacity of Georgia's waters. Compliance. Several practices can be used to address the sources of pollution. There are a number of state laws and regulations and local government ordinances in place to manage water pollution. Enhancing the implementation of and compliance with existing laws and regulations on a consistent basis across the State is an effective way to protect and restore water quality. Since environmental compliance is the ultimate goal, those regulated entities with a significant record of long-term superior environmental performance should enjoy benefits such as a reduced administrative burden (e.g., less compliance testing and reporting, less frequent inspections) and/or expedited requests for permit changes. Non-point Source Pollution. A key part of addressing nonpoint source pollution, which causes the majority of water quality problems in the state, is addressing the impact that changing land use can have on water quality. One way to mitigate certain effects of land use on water quality is completion and implementation of the comprehensive plans required by the Georgia Planning Act. These plans enhance local government authority to make land use decisions to protect water quality. Likewise, effective management of stormwater and the impacts of impervious surfaces on a watershed basis can reduce the adverse effects of runoff. When pervious land cover, such as forests and other natural areas, are paved over or otherwise converted to impervious surfaces, rainwater is no longer able to sink into the soil. The water washes across surfaces and into nearby streams, washing mud, oil, chemicals, and bacteria into creeks and rivers.The flow in streams during wet weather is greatly increased, which often causes erosion and sedimentation. Innovative ways to manage impervious surfaces and to increase infiltration of stormwater include enhancing or expanding existing programs such as post-construction stormwater management, quality growth and low-impact development initiatives, green infrastructure planning, and land conservation and open space protection programs. Effective non-point source management uses a combination of regulatory, voluntary, self-regulatory, incentive-based and educational approaches to manage polluted runoff.These efforts often involve multiple entities, including Federal, State, and local governments, organizations, regulated entities, individuals, and other stakeholders. Establishing and/or enhancing voluntary, self-regulatory and incentive-based programs will increase the 63 EPD's Draft Submission to the Water Council, June 28th, 2007 breadth and reach of non-point source management. Potential incentive programs include reducing loan rates, increasing priority for certain grants and loans, enhancing existing recognition programs (e.g., Georgia Green Subdivisions, Clean Marinas Programs) and creating innovative new programs. Forestry currently uses a self-regulation approach. Opportunities exist to expand this approach to other entities or industries that exhibit successful characteristics such as highly motivated members, stewardship attitudes, a high level of interest in selfmanagement, and a certain level of internal organization. Selfregulatory programs include a combination of established and acceptable management practices, industry-specific education and training, and self-inspection and monitoring. Self-regulation also offers the opportunity to avoid future regulations by demonstrating successful environmental compliance. Wastewater Treatment Facilities. Pollution from centralized wastewater treatment systems operated by local governments, industries and other entities is regulated through permits. These permits include effluent limitations and monitoring requirements to ensure that the facility discharge does not cause a violation of water quality standards. Significant progress has been made over the last several decades by local governments and industry to curb water pollution from wastewater treatment plan discharges. However, as municipalities grow, the need for capacity to assimilate the treated wastewaters increases and the growth within the municipality significantly increases the potential for non-point source pollution, placing a further demand on stream assimilative capacity. Local governments must assess their watersheds and develop watershed protection plans to minimize the impact on water quality of both the treated wastewater discharge and the potential increase in non-point source pollution associated with growth and development. EPD will simplify the planning process by combining planning requirements so that one consolidated plan will cover as many regulatory requirements as possible. On-site Sewage Management Systems. On-site sewage management systems are fixed sewage management systems that do not discharge directly to a public sewer. One of the most common on-site systems is the residential septic tank. In order to minimize the risk of water quality impacts from on-site sewage management systems to surface waters and groundwater, these systems must be properly sited, designed, installed, and maintained, and septage from these systems must be managed in an environmentally sound manner Potential New Tools for Pollution Management. Watershed permitting and water quality trading may be useful tools for managing water quality. A watershed permitting approach involves consideration of the condition of an entire watershed and the variety of discharges to the water source, instead of examining each individual point source discharger. Water quality trading, which is also called pollutant allocation trading, is an innovative approach to achieving water quality goals more efficiently. Sources in a watershed can face very different costs to control the same pollutant. Trading programs allow facilities to meet regulatory obligations by purchasing equivalent or superior pollution reductions from another source, achieving water quality improvements in a costeffective manner. The EPA has endorsed the use of watershed permitting and water quality trading as tools for achieving watershed goals. The United States Natural Resources Conservation Service has also endorsed the use of water quality trading, signing a Partnership Agreement with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency in October 2006 to promote the concept. Application of these tools in Georgia may help accomplish water quality protection goals. However, there are a number of unanswered questions about how best to apply the tools here to ensure water quality protection, and their potential use should be carefully evaluated following guidance to be developed in consultation with waterrelated interests across the state. 760-1-1-.11 Water Quality Management Practices (1) Findings. In promulgating this rule, the Council declares the following: a. The purpose of water quality management practices is to protect clean waters and restore impaired waters for current and future users while protecting water quality. b. There are more than 6,000 miles of streams on Georgia's list of impaired waters. c. In accordance with O.C.G.A. 12-5-21(b) it is the responsibility of the Division to establish methods for preventing and controlling the pollution of the waters of the state. d. Water quality management practices are most effective when implemented on a watershed basis. e. A variety of management practices can be implemented to enhance the ongoing management of water quality in accordance with Georgia's integrated water policy in section 760-1-1-.03 of this rule. These practices include but are not limited to: i. Practices to enhance water quality standards and monitoring ii. Practices to enhance the management of pollution including consistent implementation of and compliance with existing laws, TMDL implementation in tributaries to impaired waters, best management practices to address land use and non-point source pollution, coordinated planning and permitting, practices to manage onsite sewage treatment systems and new tools such as watershed permitting and water quality trading. f. These practices are described in sections 760-1-1-.12 through 760-1-1-.13 of this rule. 64 Georgia's Water Resources: A Blueprint for the Future 760-1-1-.12 Enhanced Water Quality Standards and Monitoring Practices (1) In promulgating this rule, the Council declares the following: a. In accordance with O.C.G.A. 12-5-23(c)(9), it is the responsibility of the Director to review water quality standards on a periodic basis and establish or revise standards of water purity for any waters of the state. b. Except for 70 miles of streams located in national forests, all Georgia waters are currently classified as High Quality Waters subject to anti-degradation review. Higher classifications such as Wild River, Scenic River, or Outstanding Natural Resource Waters require stringent controls to preclude any alteration in natural water quality. A new classification of Significant Natural Resource Waters will provide a higher, but attainable, level of protection for selected waters. c. More than 62% of impairments of Georgia's waters are due to a violation of the current bacteria standard.The appropriateness of this standard must be reviewed. d. More than 15% of Georgia's impaired waters are due to a violation of the current statewide dissolved oxygen standard. Statewide application of the dissolved oxygen standard must be reviewed. e. In accordance with section 760-1-1-.06 of this, rule the Director will develop and implement enhanced monitoring and assessment practices to collect, manage, and use the scientific data and information needed to implement this plan. (2) The Director shall add a designation for Significant Natural Resource Waters to the use classifications in section 391-3-6-.03(4) of the Rules and Regulations for Water Quality Control. This designation will provide additional protections for high quality waters but not be as stringent as wild river, scenic river or outstanding natural resource water, which generally preclude any alteration in natural water quality. This designation would support the Georgia Land Conservation Program's objective of protecting lands with high environmental values or conservation benefits. Steps in this process may include: a. Developing a definition for Significant Natural Resource Waters, b. Identifying the waters across the state that may meet the definition, and c. Defining the criteria for additional protection for these waters (3) The Director will update water quality standards for bacteria and dissolved oxygen so that the standards are correct and appropriate for different areas of the state. (4) The Director will implement the enhanced monitoring and assessment program developed in accordance with section 760-1-1-.06 of this rule. 760-1-1-.13 Enhanced Pollution Management Practices (1) In promulgating this rule, the Council declares the following: a. There are a number of laws currently in place in Georgia designed to control water pollution. Implementation of and compliance with these laws should be enhanced. b. A critical link exists between land use, stormwater and water quality. Land use changes affect water quality largely because the conversion of pervious land cover (e.g., forests and other natural areas) to impervious land cover (e.g., buildings, concrete surfaces) causes a larger volume of stormwater and stormwater-associated pollution, which streams are unable to assimilate. c. Impervious cover also prevents water infiltration into the soil, which under natural conditions is responsible for degrading pollutants, recharging groundwater and maintaining the stream baseflows needed to maintain assimilative capacity. d. Some stormwater and land use management practices can be applied on a watershed basis that will maintain infiltration and groundwater recharge and reduce or eliminate the adverse impacts of stormwater. These practices are critical elements of effective management of non-point source pollution and protection of Georgia's waters. e. Practices to manage non-point source pollutants have, to date, proven to be marginally effective. Non-point source management practices need to be reviewed, and recommendations to improve these practices need to be developed. f. Coordination of environmental planning and management between state agencies, permittees, and local government entities responsible for land use planning and management will serve to reduce the adverse effects of land use and stormwater on water quality. g. On-site sewage management systems that are properly sited, designed and maintained can effectively reduce most human health or environmental threats. h. Georgia faces environmental and health hazards associated with the illegal disposal of septage. Acceptable methods of disposal of septage include discharge to a wastewater treatment plant; discharge to a separate septage handling facility; or direct land application to land with a low potential for public exposure. i. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has published guidance regarding watershed permitting as an approach to developing discharge permits. j. The EPA and the United States Natural Resources Conservation Service have endorsed water quality or pollutant allocation trading as an innovative approach to achieve water quality goals more efficiently. 65 EPD's Draft Submission to the Water Council, June 28th, 2007 k. The State should assess new water quality management tools, such as watershed permitting and pollutant allocation trading, to determine if they can be effectively applied to support the objectives of this rule and Georgia's water quality control program. (2) The Director will update current compliance inspection and enforcement capabilities and recommend enhancements as appropriate to provide consistent implementation of existing laws and rules and regulations across the State and among local issuing authorities authorized pursuant to O.C.G.A. 12-7-8. (3) The Director will partner with regulated entities, state and local government agencies involved in land and water management, and other appropriate stakeholders to enhance current approaches to managing non-point sources of pollution, so that sources are managed on a watershed basis in an effective and integrated fashion. The following actions shall be undertaken: a. Updating the Georgia Stormwater Management Manual. b. Encouraging local stormwater utilities as a mechanism for funding the administration, operations and maintenance, and capital costs of stormwater and non-point source pollution controls. c. EPD will develop guidance for local government programs to manage fertilizer for lawn use in watersheds where phosphorus loading is an issue. d. EPD will work with appropriate stakeholders to develop industry-specific best management practices and provisions for self-monitoring and enforcement. e. EPD will work with appropriate stakeholders to develop watershed education programs to address non-point source pollution in the urban and home setting. f. The regional planning undertaken pursuant to section 760-1-1-.14 shall include elements that address stormwater management, including projections of stormflows, evaluation of stormwater permitting requirements, and assessment of practices to promote infiltration and control non-point source pollutant loading. (4) In consultation with state and local government agencies involved in land and water management, as well as other appropriate stakeholders, the Director shall evaluate the following actions, among others: a. Watershed limitations on effective impervious surfaces b. Innovative programs for protection of riparian buffers as well as requirements for revegetation of buffers c. State or local government requirements related to low impact development, improved site design, and growth management consistent with watershed protection and maintenance of water quality standards 66 d. Enhanced incentives or requirements for land conservation, wildlife conservation, greenspace protection or other land protection programs, including the use of statewide Green Infrastructure Planning requirements to protect land resources with high environmental value or conservation benefits from non-point source pollution. e. Requirements for implementation of best management practices to restore waters and watersheds currently impacted by non-point sources of pollution. f. Closer coordination between state and local government agencies with respect to land use decisions and the protection of water resources. (5) In accordance with O.C.G.A. 12-2-8 and 50-8-30 et seq., the Director will not issue a requested new or expanded water withdrawal, drinking water, discharge or land application permit unless the local government applicant has Qualified Local Government status as approved by the Georgia Department of Community Affairs. For permit renewals to governments without Qualified Local Government status, additional permit conditions may be added. (6) In accordance with O.C.G.A. 12-5-23(a)(1)(S), local governments requesting a point source discharge or land application permit are required to conduct watershed assessments and develop watershed protection plans. a. The purposes of the Watershed Protection Plan are to: 1) address water quality standards violations, 2) develop and implement best management practices to prevent future water quality standards violations, and 3) provide ongoing monitoring to either verify the effectiveness of the best management practices or provide information necessary to modify those practices to achieve water quality standards. b. Watershed assessments and protection plans shall be developed in accordance with the latest guidance provided by the Division and implemented following the schedule indicated in the plan. Population forecasts used in support of permit applications shall be used to assess whether local governments are projected to become subject to municipal stormwater permitting requirements pursuant to section 391-36.16(3)(b)(7). For those local governments projected to become subject to stormwater permitting requirements, watershed protection plans shall include pre-planning for stormwater management to ensure compliance with permitting requirements when applicable. c. In review of water withdrawal and drinking water permit applications, the Director shall evaluate the information in, and status of, any watershed assessments and watershed protection plans affected by the water use and associated discharge. d. The Division shall work with local governments, other State agencies, and regulated entities to coordinate Georgia's Water Resources: A Blueprint for the Future and integrate watershed monitoring, assessment and protection planning requirements associated with various State water programs in support of regional planning performed pursuant to section 760-1-1.14. Information from watershed monitoring and assessments will be incorporated in water quality assessments pursuant to section 760-1-1-.06(4). (7) On-site sewage management systems shall be properly sited, designed, installed, and maintained to ensure long-term performance so that negative impacts to surface water and groundwater quality are effectively reduced or eliminated. Laws and rules are currently in place and implemented by the Department of Human Resources, Division of Public Health to address siting, design and installation. a. The Director shall partner with state and local agencies and regulated entities involved in land and water management to enhance requirements for inspection and maintenance of on-site sewage management systems. The Director will evaluate the effect of the following requirements, among others: i. Inspection and maintenance ordinances implemented by local governments as a condition of public water supply system permits. ii. Inspection and the disclosure of the presence and the general location of on-site sewage management systems at the time of the sale of a property. iii. State and local government implementation of "Voluntary Guidelines for Management of Onsite and Decentralized Wastewater Systems" produced by the EPA. (8) The Division will continue to coordinate with the Department of Human Resources on proper septage disposal. In accordance with O.C.G.A. 12-8-41, the Division will regulate and permit land disposal sites that receive septic tank waste from a septic tank pumping or hauling business. (9) The Director will partner with state and local government agencies, regulated entities, and other appropriate stakeholders involved in land and water management to review the practice of watershed permitting to determine the potential for use of this tool in Georgia. (10) The Director will partner with state and local government agencies, regulated entities, and other appropriate stakeholders involved in land and water management to review the practice of pollutant allocation trading to determine the potential for use of this tool in Georgia. Regional Water Planning In order to meet Georgia's water resource needs in a sustainable manner, we must develop long-term plans for each of our major surface water and groundwater resources. These plans must forecast future water supply and assimilative capacity needs and identify the management practices that will ensure the sources can meet future needs. This rule provides for the preparation of regional water development and conservation plans (WDCPs) throughout the state. As the first step in regional planning, the boundaries of water planning regions will be established to reflect hydrologic boundaries, political boundaries, economic conditions, and other factors as appropriate. Water planning regions will include one or more major surface or groundwater resource(s). EPD will then designate a water planning council for each water planning region, which will be responsible for preparing a recommended water development and conservation plan, following EPD guidance and with support from contractors with EPD. Water planning councils will be diverse and broadly representative of local governments, water users, and other water-related interests in each planning region. Membership will depend on the existing water-related organizations and institutions in each region as well as the characteristics of regional water resources and water uses. EPD will consult with each water planning council in contracting for services to support preparation of the regional WDCP. Water planning councils and contractors will use EPD's water quantity and water quality assessments for each major water resource in the planning region to prepare a recommended regional WDCP, following EPD guidance. WDCPs will include forecasts of future water supply and assimilative capacity needs and will identify the optimal water management practices for that planning region. Each water planning council will submit a recommended plan to EPD, which will adopt the plan if it is complete and consistent with EPD guidance. Once adopted, the regional WDCPs will be used by EPD as a basis for making permitting decisions. They will also guide decisions regarding state grants and loans from the Georgia Environmental Facilities Authority for water-related projects in each water planning region. The water planning councils are not expected to have a direct role in implementation of the adopted WDCPs. Rather, implementation of management practices specified in the WDCPs will be the responsibility of water users in the region, including local governments and others with the capacity to develop water infrastructure and apply for the required permits, grants, and loans. EPD will ensure that water planning is carried out consistently and equitably across water planning regions, and that the resultant plans will lead to management of water resources so that opportunities for current and future use of water resources are maintained. 760-1-1-.14 Regional Water Planning (1) Findings. In promulgating this rule, the Council declares the following: a. The characteristics of water resources and water users across Georgia vary significantly in differing regions across Georgia. b. Protecting the ability of our water resources to meet needs for water supply and assimilation of wastewater will require regional, resource-based plans that identify the management practices appropriate to the resources and users in each region. 67 EPD's Draft Submission to the Water Council, June 28th, 2007 (2) Purpose. As authorized by O.C.G.A. 12-5-31, 12-596, and 12-5-522, and in a manner consistent with O.C.G.A. 12-5-570 et seq., the Division, or regional water planning councils designated by the Division, will prepare regional water development and conservation plans (WDCPs) for each designated water planning region across the state as a means to assure the longterm, sustainable availability of water supplies and assimilative capacities. When adopted, these WDCPs will guide Division water permitting decisions, and state grants and loans by the Georgia Environmental Facilities Authority for water projects. (3) Water Quantity and Water Quality Assessments. For each water resource (as defined by the Director), the Division will complete an assessment of the water resources' capability for water supply and assimilative capacity, as described in sections 760-1-1-.06(3) and 760-1-1-.06(4). (4) Delineation of Water Planning Regions. a. The Director will delineate regional water planning regions that comprise one or more water quantity and/or water quality resources, as defined by the Director pursuant to sections 760-1-1-.06(3)(c) and 760-1-1-.06(4)(d) and consistent with the provisions of O.C.G.A. 12-5-570 et seq. Delineation of water planning regions will be based on the hydrologic boundaries of the water resources in each planning region and on consideration of jurisdictional boundaries, infrastructure interconnections, and other factors. b. The Director shall propose an initial delineation of water planning region boundaries. Following public input and consultation with local governments and water-related interests, the Director shall publish a final delineation. c. Local jurisdictions that rely on water resources that lie in more than one water planning region, including those jurisdictions that are part of the Metropolitan North Georgia Water Planning District, will have the option of contributing to preparation of more than one water development and conservation plan. (5) Designation of Water Planning Councils. The Director shall designate water planning councils to prepare regional water development and water conservation plans for each water planning region. a. To the greatest extent practicable, membership of each water planning council shall be diverse and broadly representative of local governments and water-related interests in the water planning region. Composition of water planning councils may vary between regions, reflecting variation in water resources and water use, but consistent with O.C.G.A. 12-5-523(b), each water planning council will include, at a minimum, representatives of nonprofit advocacy organizations, business organizations, local government entities and associations of local government entities, and regional development centers. 68 b. Each water planning council shall, through a memorandum of agreement (MOA) with EPD, establish procedures including but not limited to: i. Decision-making procedures; ii. Provisions for appropriate public sector involvement in plan development and implementation of management practices; iii. Specifications for advisory bodies and processes, including opportunities for meaningful public participation in plan development; iv. Provisions for the participation of any local government located outside the planning region boundary that relies on, or impacts, water resources within the planning region; v. Other requirements established by guidance issued by the Director. c. Memoranda of agreement between EPD and water planning councils shall have a three-year term and be subject to renewal. In the event of vacancies, the Director shall make additional appointments to a water planning council during the term of the agreement. Renewal of a MOA shall be contingent on performance, which shall be evaluated according to regional water planning guidance. d. The provisions of this section do not apply to any local government subject to the Metropolitan North Georgia Water Planning District Act, O.C.G.A. 12-5-570 et seq., except to the extent such local government is participating in a water planning council described in this section. (6) Regional Water Development and Conservation Plans (WDCPs). a. Water planning councils shall, following guidance to be provided by the Director, oversee preparation of regional water development and conservation plans. Plans shall include forecasts of water supply and assimilative capacity needs for each water source within each planning area, developed in consultation with the Division. b. In accordance with O.C.G.A. 12-5-522 et seq., regional water development and conservation plans shall promote the sustainable use of Georgia's waters, through the selection of an array of management practices, to support the state's economy, to protect public health and natural systems, and to enhance the quality of life for all citizens. The plans shall identify steps which will be taken to ensure that the forecasted needs can be met within the water resources' capabilities, as specified in the water resource assessments defined by the Director. c. Plans shall include the following principal elements, which shall be developed according to guidance issued by the Director: i. Local governments lying in whole or part within the water planning region; Georgia's Water Resources: A Blueprint for the Future ii. Planning for regions at the periphery of the water planning region that may be located in more than one regional water planning region; iii. Major water users; iv. Surface water and groundwater sources and their conditions; v. Forecasts of 10-, 20-, 30-, and 40-year population expectations, water demands, wastewater returns, land surface types and distribution, and employment characteristics, developed in consultation with EPD; vi. Forecasted uses of water bodies for water supply, wastewater discharge, and storm flows for each forecast period; vii. Comparisons of those forecasts with the sustainable yields and assimilative capacities of water resources as determined by the water quantity and water quality assessments. viii. Water quantity and quality management objectives for 10-, 20, 30-, and 40-year time horizons. ix. Recommendations for appropriate management practices for stormwater management, wastewater treatment, water supply, water conservation, and the general protection of water quality within the planning region. Management practices shall help meet the water quality and water quantity management objectives of the WDCP and provide for sustainable use of available water or practices that supplement water availability when consistent with criteria specified in section 760-1-1-.10(1) and 7601-1-.10(2). Practices should also emsure the sustainable use of assimilative capacity on a watershed basis, the restoration of impaired waters and protection of waters that currently meet water quality standards. x. Proposals for addressing data and information needs; xi. Benchmarks for assessment of plan effectiveness and identification of required revisions; xii. Actions required of state to support objectives in the recommended water development and conservation plan. xiii. Other elements established by guidance issued by the Director. d. The Division shall develop guidance for the process of creation, finalization and revisions of regional water development and conservation plans. This guidance shall include, but not be limited to: i. Procedures and criteria for forecasting water demands and needs for assimilative capacity. ii. The criteria for review of such plans, including provisions to ensure that plan implementation shall not cause undue adverse impacts on water users or water uses in the subject planning area or in other planning areas iii. Procedures and criteria for future review and revision of water development and conservation plans. iv. Procedures for providing state water planning funds to contractors to assist water planning councils in plan development. e. The Division shall provide technical assistance to water planning councils in preparation of water development and conservation plans. The Division shall also contract for services needed to support the preparation of the plan. Each water planning council shall assist EPD in directing the work of contractor(s) for their water planning region. f. The Director shall take the steps necessary to ensure communication and coordination between water planning councils charged with preparation of plans for water resources that are hydrologically-connected or those affected by water management activities in adjacent planning regions. (7) Regional Water Development and Conservation Plan Review and Approval. a. Regional water planning councils shall submit recommended regional water development and conservation plans to the Director. The Director shall review recommended regional water development and conservation plans and any amendments thereto to determine if they are complete with respect to section 760-1-1-.14(6) and: i. Adopt a recommended plan if it is complete and consistent with the provisions of this rule and guidance adopted pursuant to this rule; or ii. Advise the regional water planning council as to additional measures that should be taken to complete a recommended plan and make it consistent with the provisions of this rule and guidance adopted pursuant to this rule; or iii. Adopt a recommended plan with conditions. b. For any water planning region for which a recommended plan is not submitted by the date specified in the guidance for plan development, the Director shall prepare the regional water development and conservation plan and identify management practices as described in section 760-11-.14(6). c. Upon adoption, the Director shall use the water development and conservation plans to guide decisions regarding permitting. Plans will also guide state grants and loans from the Georgia Environmental Facilities Authority for water-related projects within that water planning region. (8) Future revisions of water development and conservation plans shall follow the procedures and meet the criteria listed in section 760-1-1-.14(6) and guidance developed by the Director pursuant to section 760-1-1-.14(6)(d). 69 EPD's Draft Submission to the Water Council, June 28th, 2007 70 Georgia's Water Resources: A Blueprint for the Future Implementation of Regional Water Planning Implementation of the comprehensive statewide water management plan will be accomplished through regional water planning, which will produce resource-based plans that identify the management practices to be implemented in each water planning region. Selection and implementation of management practices on a local and regional level is the most effective way to ensure that current and future needs for water supply and assimilative capacity are met. As described in the preceding rule, regional water planning will require delineation of boundaries for resource assessment and boundaries for regional water planning; assessment of water supply capability and assimilative capacity; designation of water planning councils; forecasting of water and assimilative capacity needs; and preparation of water development and conservation plans. Each of these steps are outlined below. This section concludes with a brief discussion of information needs and timeframe for regional planning. Boundaries for Resource Assessment and Regional Water Planning Regional planning will require that two kinds of geographical boundaries be established. First, hydrologic boundaries will be required to divide river basins and aquifers into units that can be individually assessed for water supply capability (i.e., sustainable yield) and assimilative capacity. For surface water sources, boundaries for water quantity assessment need to be of sufficient size to include major water sources, include the significant influences on the condition of those water sources, and provide flexibility in selection of water management practices to be employed by water users within the boundary. Delineation of boundaries for assessment of resources will also have to consider availability of data on current and historical flow patterns and/or nodes appropriate for estimation of historical flow patterns. For groundwater sources, delineation of boundaries may consider recharge areas, areas of heaviest use and major zones of influence, and discharge areas. Boundaries for water quality assessments will most likely be nested within the larger boundaries used for the water quantity assessment. Water quality assessments will require delineation of sub-basins or watersheds of an appropriate size for water quality modeling. The sub-basins or watersheds will be based on significant hydrologic features such as dams. These hydrologic features will provide boundaries for water quality modeling purposes. Delineation of boundaries for water quality assessment will also consider the complexity and number of point source discharges in a watershed. The second set of geographical boundaries will delineate water planning regions, taking into account both hydrologic and political boundaries. EPD will develop an initial proposal for water planning regions. After review and comment by local governments, water-related interests, and the general public, EPD will revise the proposed water planning regions and finalize the boundaries for regional planning. When developing the initial proposal for water planning regions, EPD will start with the resource assessment boundaries described above, but will adjust those boundaries in light of practical considerations. Most water management practices will be implemented by cities, counties, and water/sewer authorities, so planning boundaries will be aligned with jurisdictional lines as much as possible. The EPD will also consider existing infrastructure, surface-groundwater interactions, the extent of the geographic area that may impact a water source, and other factors. While an effort will be made to align water planning boundaries with jurisdictional lines, some localities may lie in more than one planning region. Others may rely on, or impact, water resources being addressed in different water development and conservation plans. The process for delineation of water planning regions will provide flexibility for those localities, and representatives of those localities will be able to participate in preparation of more than one water development and conservation plan. If this proves too burdensome or costly, a jurisdiction should participate in preparation of the WDCP addressing the resource or resources that jurisdiction most affects. Decisions about what planning region is most appropriate for individual localities should be guided by an assessment of the resources to which they are linked and the resources on which they are likely to place stress. Water planning boundaries must be consistent with the statutorily-defined boundaries of the Metropolitan North Georgia Water Planning District (the District). The District's cities and counties, however, will not be precluded from participating in contiguous Water Planning Councils. Localities in the District will be eligible to participate in more than one regional plan, with their participation again guided by assessment of the resources to which they are linked and the resources on which they are likely to place stress. A water development and conservation plan will be developed for each planning region. Water planning regions may encompass several water sources, each with a distinct resource assessment. The WDCPs developed for these planning regions will address each of the water sources within the region's boundaries, starting from the water quantity and water quality assessments that EPD will conduct for individual water resources. As described in 760-1-1-.06 these assessments will produce estimates of water supply capability, or sustainable yield, and assimilative capacity for each water resource. Assessment of Resource Capacity Water Quantity Resource Assessment For each major water source, EPD will assess the quantity of water that source can yield, under current conditions of development, without causing negative impacts to the source or to opportunities for water use. This amount of water can be called the sustainable yield. 71 EPD's Draft Submission to the Water Council, June 28th, 2007 Determination of sustainable yield for surface water sources will include assessments of historical flows and flow patterns, currently as well as post-development. These determinations will consider the factors that influenced historical stream flows, such as the location, size and operational policies of water storage facilities, water withdrawals, and water returns. EPD will develop, or contract with others to develop, hydrologic planning tools that can be used to calculate the impact of various water management practices on consumptive use and sustainable yield of surface water sources. These hydrologic planning tools will be based on mathematical models. The variables used in the models, including the locations of nodes, desired flow regimes, and the consumptive use impacts of various management practices, will be developed by the EPD with appropriate input from technical professionals and in consultation with water-related interests from all sectors across the state. To determine the sustainable yield of groundwater sources, EPD will consider the major factors that influence the quantity of water that can be sustainably pumped from an aquifer. Some of the major factors include aquifer recharge rates, inter-aquifer leakage, and aquifer/surface interactions. The EPD will give considerable attention to the effect of current withdrawals on aquifers and the streams that are fed by the aquifers, especially in areas where drops in groundwater levels have limited the availability of water for some users or have contributed to saltwater intrusion. For some aquifers, however, future increases in withdrawals that can be reasonably expected are highly unlikely to have unacceptable adverse impacts on the aquifer, and it will not be possible to evaluate sustainable yield within reasonable time and cost constraints. Management of these aquifers will focus on targeted, recurrent monitoring of aquifer response to withdrawal to provide early warning of any adverse effects. The EPD will determine the sustainable yield of aquifers using input from hydrogeologists, engineers, biologists, and experts from other related fields. The EPD will create advisory bodies for consultation with water-related interests in all sectors and enter into contractual arrangements as necessary to complement the expertise of EPD staff. Water Quality Resource Assessment Assessment of the capability of waters within a sub-basin or watershed to assimilate treated wastewaters will require water quality modeling. The initial step will be the development of steady state tabletop water quality models using conservative assumptions and existing data and information. The second step in the process is to forecast the flows and location of proposed discharges in the water planning region. Water planning councils will compile this information, which should include forecasted wastewater needs, flow projections, and proposed discharge locations for wastewater treatment plants. EPD will use this information in the water quality models to determine effluent limitations within a given water planning region. 72 In some sub-basins or watersheds, the assimilative capacity may not be adequate to support the projected needs and/or very stringent treatment levels may be predicted by the tabletop models. For these areas, it may be advisable to collect water quality data to calibrate the models. This step will require additional time and resources, but will result in more defensible water quality models. Similarly, modeling of some watersheds may be complicated by variable hydrologic features such as the release from a dam, multiple point sources, and/or requirements for very substantial investment in infrastructure. For these areas, steady state models may be inadequate and hydrodynamic water quality models will be needed. These models may initially be tabletop models; however, it is likely that the decisions to be made will warrant the collection of water quality data for use in calibrating the hydrodynamic models. EPD will develop or contract with others to develop the water quality models to be used to determine effluent limitations. A number of mathematical modeling assumptions and decisions are required in constructing water quality models, all of which shall be made under EPD's purview with input from technical professionals and in consultation with water-related interests in the planning region. Review and Revision of Resource Assessments Water quantity and water quality assessments may be reviewed and, potentially, revised as the statewide water management plan is revised pursuant to O.C.G.A 12-5-525(c). As described in the statewide planning, monitoring will be enhanced to track the condition of water resources, including indicators of sustainable water use and physical, chemical, and biological integrity. Results of that monitoring will be used to refine the judgments and projections in the resource assessments. If new information indicates that desired flow regimes are not being met, for example, the EPD may need to revise the water quantity resource assessment. Likewise, if data indicates that waters violate water quality standards, effluent limitations may be revised. Water Planning Councils As set forth in 760-1-1-.06, the principal goal of the resource assessments is to support the development of regional water development and conservation plans (WDCPs). These WDCPs will specify the most appropriate water management practices for each water planning region and include plans for the implementation of these practices. When adopted by the Director, WDCPs will guide EPD's water permitting and use of state grants and loans. EPD will designate a water planning council for each planning region, which will be responsible for developing a recommended water development and conservation plans. Preparation of WDCPs provides an opportunity for regional leadership in identifying and selecting the water management practices that are most in keeping with local goals and capabilities. Water users will be able to participate in creating the plans that will guide their actions in the future. EPD's view is that the best plan is one developed by local governments and water-related interests Georgia's Water Resources: A Blueprint for the Future in each water planning region; these plans can be more timely and reflect the region's unique characteristics, leading to more effective implementation. For each water planning region, the Director will provide guidance specifying the water use sectors and water-related interests that, at a minimum, shall be represented on the water planning council. Guidance will also include qualifications and criteria for selection of council members. The Director will accept nominations of candidates for each water planning council and designate council members based on that guidance. Water planning councils will operate using procedures specified in memoranda of agreement with EPD. Water Planning Councils will have to draw on appropriate technical expertise, ensure that stakeholder perspectives and input are incorporated during plan development, and have explicit decision making processes. As described in 760-1-1-.14(5)(b), operating memoranda of agreement should specify procedures for decision making, public sector involvement in plan preparation, and stakeholder and public participation.Memoranda of agreement may also be expected to address provisions for collaboration or partnerships with existing water-related organizations and institutions in the water planning region, provisions for consultation or coordination with adjoining WPCs, and conflict of interest provisions. Required elements will be specified in guidance from the Director. EPD will work with each WPC to develop contracts and scopes of work for services in support of planning. EPD will prepare a generic request for proposals (RFP), which water planning councils may tailor to the water resources, water users, and planning issues in each water planning region. EPD will work with each water planning council to develop RFPs and scopes of work appropriate to the water planning region and will execute contracts for the agreed-upon services. Water Development and Conservation Plans Forecasting Future Water and Assimilative Capacity Needs As the first step in preparing water development and conservation plans, and in consultation with EPD, WPCs will be responsible for converting regional population and employment forecasts (provided by the state) into forecasts of water supply needs and assimilative capacity needs. Water planning councils will then be responsible for comparing their forecasts with the findings in EPD's water quantity and water quality assessments and identifying the management practices that can be implemented to meet the region's water resource needs. EPD, in consultation with technical experts, local governments, and water-related interests, will develop a standard methodology and provide guidance for forecasting future water supply and wastewater discharge needs. This standard methodology will include consideration of regional population and employment forecasts. To support these regional forecasts, EPD will seek the oversight of the Department of Community Affairs and other appropriate state resources in the development of statewide population and economic forecasts. The State will begin developing this statewide forecast soon after the adoption of the statewide water management plan. Once a standard methodology is established, water planning councils, with support from contractors, will develop regional forecasts of water supply needs, wastewater discharges, and stormflows for the hydrologic units within the water planning region. Water planning councils should work cooperatively with the Department of Community Affairs, regional development centers, local governments, and other entities that compile relevant data or have recently developed projections. WPCs should also allow the public to review the forecasts as they are developed. In consultation with DCA, EPD will review forecasts for consistency with guidelines and criteria before detailed planning of management practices is undertaken. Preparation of Recommended Water Development and Conservation Plans Once forecasts are finalized, the water planning councils, with contractor support, will be responsible for completing recommended Water Development and Conservation Plans (WDCPs), following EPD guidance, and submitting them to the Director for adoption. These management plans will specify the practices to be implemented by water users, including cities, counties, authorities, and others, to protect water quality and manage water supply, wastewater, and stormwater. Plans will also specify implementation responsibilities and funding mechanisms. When appropriate, WDCPs may specify that nongovernmental entities and public-private partnerships will implement certain management practices. Water conservation shall be a priority for implementation in all water planning regions. Plans shall specify the water conservation measures to be implemented in the water planning region, pursuant to Rule 760-1-1-.08(2) and the water conservation implementation plan that paragraph requires. When communities within a water planning region utilize multiple water sources, whether surface water or groundwater sources, WDCPs will address the management of all sources. In coastal areas, plans should also address the protection of estuarine resources. When appropriate, WDCPs should build on or integrate existing management plans, such as local water and sewer plans and watershed protection plans. Plans should also draw on TMDL implementation plans and may prescribe additional monitoring and assessment to improve information on the sources of pollution that contribute to water quality impairment. Plans could also address other improvements in the information on cumulative water use and resource capacities (e.g., inventory of water withdrawals that fall below permitting thresholds and/or decentralized water and wastewater treatment systems). The plans should also address the projected impact of water management practices on adjacent water planning regions. For areas contiguous to the Metropolitan North Georgia Water Planning District, updates of the District plans will ultimately be based on resource assessments and regional forecasts developed with the same methodology used in other planning 73 EPD's Draft Submission to the Water Council, June 28th, 2007 regions. This consistency will allow coordinated planning for contiguous areas and evaluation of impacts on shared water resources. EPD will prepare guidance on the preparation of WDCPs by WPCs. The guidance will provide WPCs with the results of the EPD's water resource assessments for each water source in the water planning region, which will serve as a basis for water management decisions. The guidance will address specific water management practices and how they can affect overall water quality and water quantity. Guidance will also include a schedule for the preparation of plans, which will include specific tasks and milestones in the planning process. The milestones will provide designated points for preliminary review by the EPD, so the Division can ensure that the plan development is proceeding consistent with guidance. The exact schedule for completing tasks and reaching milestones will vary among the WPCs, depending on the availability of information and the status of water resources in the water planning region. Schedules for WDCP development will also depend in part on State completion of resource assessments and statewide population and economic forecasts. Plans shall include benchmarks for evaluation of plan effectiveness. EPD guidance will include an initial set of evaluation metrics and WPCs may adapt these metrics if supported by a specific rationale. Plans will be revised on a three year cycle, consistent with O.C.G.A. 12-5-525(c). WPCs should seek the involvement of those who will be affected by the plan set forth in the WDCPs, so that future conflict can be avoided as much as possible. Documentation of the WPC's deliberations and decisions shall be available to the public, and opportunities for public and stakeholder involvement shall be provided throughout preparation of the WDCP. WCPs should also cooperate with adjacent WPCs through joint work sessions, planning conferences, inclusion of representatives from adjacent WPCs, the creation of advisory committees composed of representatives from several water planning regions, or other collaborative methods. EPD oversight of forecasts and plan development are also mechanisms to decrease the need for formal dispute resolution processes. In some cases, formal mediation or related approaches may be useful in resolving disputes during plan development or implementation. DCA provides information on alternate dispute resolution and mediation to assist in local and regional comprehensive planning, and this information is a resource potentially useful in regional water planning as well. In addition, EPD permitting processes will be a primary mechanism for implementation of WDCPs. These processes provide opportunities for public comment on specific permits as well as mechanisms for appealing a permit or other legal action. EPD staff will work actively with the WPCs to support preparation of water development and conservation plans. EPD will provide the WPC with a complete inventory of permit holders (withdrawal, wastewater discharge, stormwater discharge, large and small drinking water systems). EPD may designate liaisons to each WPC, who could work to ensure the compatibility of 74 plans for adjacent water planning regions, and who could also coordinate WPC interactions with Water Council agencies beyond EPD as needed. EPD will also work with other state agencies and partners to coordinate education, outreach and technical assistance in support of regional planning and implementation of WDCPs. Adoption of Water Development and Conservation Plans Recommended WDCPs will be submitted to the Director by the water planning councils. Plans will be evaluated by the EPD according to procedures outlined in guidance for plan preparation. Each plan must meet three overarching criteria: Is consistent with the vision for water management established in Georgia law; Will ensure that long-term needs for water use and water protection in the water planning region will be met; and Will not cause undue adverse impacts on water users or water uses. If a plan meets these criteria, is consistent with that guidance, and does not have significant incompatibilities with plans for adjacent or hydrologically-connected planning regions, it will be adopted as submitted. If a WDCP cannot be adopted as submitted, EPD will work with the WPC to identify the actions required to make the plan consistent with guidance and these criteria. Once those actions are taken, the plan will be adopted. If a water planning council fails to take these steps within a specified timeframe, EPD will take the steps necessary to add the conditions required to make the plan consistent with guidance. EPD will then adopt the plan with conditions. Given resource constraints, it is likely that WDCPs will be completed in some parts of the state before they are completed in others. If a submitted WDCP may have impacts in water planning regions for which WDCPs have not yet been adopted, EPD may adopt the plan on a contingent basis, or only adopt it in part, pending completion of WDCPs in adjacent regions. Information Needs, Timetable, and Budget Development Regional planning will require completion of a number of tasks related to the assessment of water supply capability and assimilative capacity. Many of these tasks entail the analysis and evaluation of information on water quality and water quantity. Based on these evaluations, management practices (i.e., actions and activities) will be selected and implemented to ensure future reasonable uses of water resources in beneficial and sustainable ways. Implementing the management practices required to meet this goal may have significant cost and behavior implications for both direct and indirect users of Georgia's water resources. Protection of our water resources, and the cost and characteristics of our management practices, are dependent on the quality of the information available for management decisions. Given this Georgia's Water Resources: A Blueprint for the Future dependence, it is imperative that we regularly collect the range of water quality and water quantity information needed to make informed water management decisions. Some information on the condition and use of Georgia's water resources is currently available through programs operated by EPD or by the United States Geological Survey (USGS) under contract with EPD. Programs that provide information that can support resource assessments and regional water planning include the following: Georgia Water-Use Program, which captures periodic water withdrawal data reported to EPD by holders of nonagricultural withdrawal permits; HydroWatch Monitoring Network, which records streamflows and rainfall at intervals for stations throughout the state; Stream Water Quality Ambient Monitoring Network, which provides stream water quality data from monitoring stations statewide; and Groundwater Monitoring Network, which measures and displays water levels and water quality data from wells across the state. Water resource assessments, to be initiated in 2008, will provide an opportunity to build on and improve the available information. These assessments will also require periodic updates, allowing incorporation of additional data and information for areas where the current information base has gaps or weaknesses. Additional information will be needed to refine four types of analysis: forecasts of water and wastewater needs, water quantity resource assessments for surface water sources, water quantity resource assessments for groundwater sources, and water quality resource assessments. A comprehensive monitoring plan will be needed to address generally acknowledged weaknesses in the information base available for these analyses. One weakness is the paucity of information on the quality of waters throughout Georgia. Assessing the future assimilative capacities of our streams, and designing management practices that will allow sustainable use of those capacities, will depend largely upon collecting the data needed to characterize stream conditions. A second weakness is a lack of information on surface water flows, groundwater levels, and the water use that these can support in a sustainable manner. These weaknesses can be partially addressed by establishing a more comprehensive statewide network of surface water and groundwater monitoring stations. More monitoring sites are needed to ensure the data are available to assess the capabilities of water resources, and to assess the impact that increased use in some areas might have on those who share the resource. Periodic updates of water resource assessments will provide an understanding of changes in the condition and status of water resources, an opportunity to measure and report on progress, and information to ensure that we meeting water use and environmental objectives. Accomplishing all of this will require a comprehensive water monitoring plan that defines what information is needed; where, when, and how such information is to be collected; and what entities shall assume responsibilities for collection, management, and use of this information. This monitoring plan, and the cost of implementing it, will be closely related to the contents of the comprehensive statewide water management plan to be submitted to the Legislature in January 2008. As the Water Council refines the draft comprehensive statewide water management plan in the months approaching December 2007, EPD will establish a scientific advisory board, and coordinate with the Georgia Water Resources Institute at the Georgia Institute of Technology, to assist in design and review of a comprehensive assessment and monitoring plan, with associated budget. The comprehensive assessment and monitoring plan will be designed to support resource assessments, regional planning, and implementation of the comprehensive statewide water management plan. It is expected that state funding to support implementation of the comprehensive statewide water management plan, including funding for work by EPD, other state agencies, and contractors, will be developed as part of the Governor's FY09 budget proposal. Preparatory work in FY08 would include delineation of water planning regions, designation of water planning councils, and development of initial RFPs and scopes of work for services in support of preparation of WDCPs. Contingent on funding, activities in FY09 may include development of guidance for resource assessments, guidance for forecasting water supply and wastewater needs, and guidance for preparation of water development and conservation plans. Contracting for services in support of regional planning, development of resource assessments, and forecasting of water supply and wastewater needs may be initiated in FY09, with early drafts of recommended water development and conservation plans completed for some water planning regions in FY10. Again contingent on funding, adoption of WDCPs for all water planning regions may be completed in FY11. 75 EPD's Draft Submission to the Water Council, June 28th, 2007 76 Georgia's Water Resources: A Blueprint for the Future Acknowledgments The Environmental Protection Division wishes to thank the various organizations and individuals who provided EPD with invaluable input towards the creation of the draft Comprehensive Statewide Water Management Plan presented in Georgia's Water Resources: A Blueprint for the Future. Whether by serving on a Technical, Basin or the State Advisory Committee, your contributions towards this first of its kind effort for the State of Georgia have been greatly appreciated.1 Those contributions provided a rich information base from which to draw as the draft plan was developed. It should be noted, however, that the policy content of the draft plan has been solely determined by the Director of EPD, and participation as an advisor should not necessarily be assumed to infer endorsement of the Draft Plan. Technical Advisory Committees (TAC) TACs provided early input, when needed, by answering specific technical questions to inform water policy options. The technical advisors have extensive expertise and are actively working on and/or researching the topic being addressed. TAC members brought a broad range of scientific, technical, and practical experience to EPD during the planning process. Water Conservation TAC Ms. Judy Adler Pollution Prevention & Assistance Division Ms. Cindy Daniel Metropolitan North Georgia Water Planning District/ARC Ms. Deatre Denion City of Savannah Mr. David Eigenberg Georgia Soil and Water Conservation Commission Mr. Bill Evans Georgia Power Mr. Jim Gleason City of Woodstock Mr. David Gustashaw Interface, Inc. Mr. Kerry Harrison University of Georgia / NESPAL Dr. Jim Hook University of Georgia / NESPAL Mr. Mark Johnson Weyerhaeuser Ms. Kathy Nguyen Cobb County Water System Ms. Rose Mary Seymour Georgia Association of Water Professionals/Georgia WaterWise Council Mr. Tom Shannon Ewing Irrigation Mr. Robert Sumner Plumbing and Mechanical Association of Georgia Ms. Shana Udvardy Georgia Conservancy Water Reuse TAC Mr. Charlie Birkenkamper City of Savannah Mr. Mark Esoda Georgia Golf Course Superintendents Association Mr. Craig Ferguson PBS&J Mr. Daniel Johnson Hayes, James, & Associates, Inc. Ms. Michelle Lawrence Fulton County Department of Public Works Mr. Paul Morgan Rain Harvest Company Mr. Lawrence (Larry) Morris University of Georgia, Warnell School of Forest Resources Mr. Don Plaisted Duke Energy Mr. Bob Scott Irrigation Consultants Mr. Frank Stephens Gwinnett County Public Works Mr. Jim Vaughn Stevenson and Palmer Target Flow Regime TAC Mr. John Biagi Wildlife Resources Division Ms. Sandy Tucker US Fish & Wildlife Service Dr. Mary Davis The Nature Conservancy Dr. Mary Freeman USGS & UGA Dr. Merryl Alber University of Georgia Mr. Bob Scott Georgia Environmental Protection Division Mr. Larry Neal MACTEC On-site Sewage Management Systems TAC Mr. Tim Allee Department of Human Resources Mr. Bill Durham Durham & Taylor Supply, Inc. Mr. Philip Freshley LandTec SE, Inc. Mr. Matt Harper Atlanta Regional Commission Mr. Keith A. Higgs Douglasville-Douglas County Water & Sewer Authority Mr. Joseph Krewer Department of Community Affairs Mr. George McClure The McClure Company / Home Builders Association of Georgia Ms. Bettie Sleeth Home Builders Association of Georgia Mr. Dewayne Tanner Chatham County Health Department Ms. Shana Udvardy Georgia Conservancy Mr. Scott Uhlich Department of Human Resources Dr. Larry West University of Georgia, Department of Crop and Soil Sciences 1 Please note: TAC, BAC and SAC member listings denote the individual and the organization they represented at the time of appointment. 77 EPD's Draft Submission to the Water Council, June 28th, 2007 Basin Advisory Committees (BAC) The seven BACs represented six "super" basins as well as an overlay committee to provide interaction/coordination between this process and the Metropolitan North Georgia Water Planning District's water management plans. BAC members were nominated by various organizations and appointed to serve by the Governor. The primary purpose of the BACs was to provide structured "regional" perspectives and input on water management objectives and potential policy tools and/or options. The BACs were not asked to reach consensus on specific decisions, but to assess each set of policy option in some detail for the purpose of providing insight from diverse perspectives to help EPD refine and improve Georgia's water management policies and/or options. Savannah & Ogeechee Basin Advisory Committee Ms. Amanda Wrona - The Nature Conservancy, Savannah Mr. Dwain Biggerstaff - Mayor, Lincolnton Ms. Patty McIntosh - Georgia Conservancy, Savannah Ms. Chandra Brown - Canoochee Riverkeeper, Statesboro Mr. Frank Carl - Savannah Riverkeeper, Augusta Mr. Kline Petty - Georgia Power, Evans Mr. Williams C. Clayton - Columbia County Water, Martinez Mr. W. Phillip Jones - Bryan County, Pembroke Ms. Jan Tankersley - Bulloch County, Statesboro Mr. Lamar Smith - Southprop Development, Reidsville Mr. Gary Fesperman - City of Lavonia, Lavonia Mr. Mike Eskew - City of Washington, Washington Mr. Bob Scanlon - City of Savannah, Savannah Mr. Dennis Brown - GSWCC Commission Member, Commerce Mr. Robert Sackellares - Georgia Pacific, Atlanta Mr. Craig Lanier - Farmer & Cotton Gin, Metter Mr. Chris McCorkle - Horticulture Production, Dearing Mr. Joe Boddiford - Cotton & Peanut Farmer, Sylvania Ms. Mary Elfner - Mary Elfner Environmental Consulting, Savannah Mr. Mack Duncan - J.M. Huber Corporation, Wrens Mr. Braye Boardman - Beacon Blue LLC, Augusta Ms. Jackie Jackson - Metropolitan Planning Commission, Savannah Mr. Roland J. Waller - City of Bloomingdale Mr. Mark Smith - South Atlantic Utilities, Savannah Mr. James P. Alfriend - Landowner and Forestry Consultant, Thomson Mr. Pat Reddish - Forest Products Company, Riceboro Mr. Larry Haley - Hartwell Mr. Joe Benner - Lake Hartwell Association Satilla, Suwannee & St. Marys Basin Advisory Committee Mr. Grady Thompson - Tift County Board of Commissioners, Tifton Mr. Dan Coty - Georgia Association of RDC's, Brunswick Mr. David Kyler - Center for Sustainable Coast, St. Simons Island Ms. Emily Perry Davenport - South Georgia Regional Development Center, Valdosta Mr. Gordon Rogers - Satilla Riverkeeper, Waynesville Mr. William Francis - City of Waycross, Brunswick Mr. John Strickland - Clinch County Board of Commissioners, Homerville Mr. Paul Loupee - Island Specialties, St. Simons Island Mr. Greg C. Evans - Statewide Engineering, Inc., Douglas Mayor John Fretti - City of Valdosta, Valdosta Mr. Jim Renner - Golder Associates, Atlanta Mr. Bill Jernigan - Georgia Pacific Corporation, Atlanta Mr. Andres Villegas - Langdale Industries, Valdosta Mr. Darvin Eason - Farmer and Cotton Gin Owner, Lenox Mr. O.C. Prince - Lake Park Mr. Jim Gilbert - General Counsel - Sea Island, Sea Island Mr. William F. Varn - Landowner and Forestry Products Company, Hoboken Ms. Myrna Ballard - Valdosta-Lowndes County Chamber of Commerce, Valdosta Mr. Richard Lee - Lowndes County Board of Commissioners, Valdosta Mr. Gary Walker - Walker Farms, Ty Ty Mr. Ken Smith - Mayor, City of Kingsland Oconee, Ocmulgee, & Altamaha Basin Advisory Committee Ms. Christi Lambert - The Nature Conservancy, Georgia Chapter, Darien Mr. Frank Turner - Newton Land Trust, Covington Mr. Melvin Davis - Oconee County Commission, Watkinsville 78 Georgia's Water Resources: A Blueprint for the Future Mr. Billy Trapnell - Mayor, City of Metter Ms. Christine Rodick - UGA River Basin Center, Athens Ms. Susan Varlamoff - UGA Agricultural & Environmental Sciences, Athens Ms. Deborah Sheppard - Altamaha Riverkeeper, Darien Ms. Carol Hassell - Georgia Wildlife Federation, Covington Mr. Scott Hendricks - Georgia Power Land Resources, Atlanta Mr. Robert Phillips - Georgia Bass Federation, Covington Mr. Alan Reddish - City Manager, Athens Mr. Ken Turner - Mayor, City of Gordon Mr. Tony Rojas - Macon Water Authority, Macon Mr. Larry Kaiser - Public Services and Engineering, Conyers Mr. Bryan Rodgers - Laurens County, Dublin Mr. Ted Griffin - A.A.A. Construction Mr. Rick Jeffares - City Manager, Locust Grove Mr. Gerald A. Dewitt - Rayonier, Jesup Mr. David Hays - GSWCC Commission Member, Covington Ms. Jessica Sterling - Upper Oconee Watershed Network, Athens Mr. Tom Lehman - Engelhard Corporation, Gordon Mr. Jonathan Green - Gold Kist, Atlanta Mr. Ronnie Stapp - Pennington Seed, Madison Mr. Spencer Black - Triangle Chemical, Macon Mr. Randall Morris - Row Crop Farmer, Uvalda Mr. Jerry Davis - Cotton Gin, Hawkinsville Mr. Wade Hall - Landowner, Eastman Dr. L.C. Evans - Landowner, Cochran Mr. Ted Rhinehart - Dekalb County - Pubic Works, Decatur Mr. Mark Brock - Brock Design Group, Suwanee Mr. Larry Eley - White Plains Flint & Ochlockonee Basin Advisory Committee Mr. Hal Haddock - Flint River Regional Water Council, Inc., Albany Mr. Malcolm Hodges - The Nature Conservancy, GA Chapter, Atlanta Mr. Dave Wills - Webster County Board of Commissioners, Preston Ms. Janet Sheldon - Georgia Conservancy, Moultrie Mr. Tommy Greggors - Georgia Wildlife Federation, Leesburg Mr. Ronnie Walston - Georgia Power, Albany Mr. Wade Brannan - Clayton County Water Authority, Morrow Mr. Charles Simmons - Randolph County Board of Commissioners, Cuthbert Mr. George McIntosh - Highland Land Company, Albany Mr. Ronnie Dudley - Stevenson & Palmer, Albany Dr. Brant Keller - Public Utilities Manager, Griffin Mr. Steve Singletary - GSWCC Commission Member, Blakely Mr. David Burke - Oil Dri Corporation, Ochlocknee Mr. Paul Ahnberg - Engelhard Corporation, Attapulgus Mr. Mike Newbury - Cotton and Peanut Grower, Arlington Mr. Terrell Hudson - Cotton, Peanut, and Watermelon Grower, Unadilla Mr. Harvey Lemmon - Beef Industry Farmer, Woodbury Mr. Chris Hobby - City of Bainbridge, Bainbridge Mr. Russ Ober - Leesburg Ms. Rebecca Martin - Development Authority Bainbridge, Bainbridge Mr. Raines Jordan - Land Owner, Talbutton Mr. Dennis L. Carey - Timber Harvesting Firm, Montezuma Mr. Rick Eastin - City of Fayetteville, Department of Water and Sewer, Fayetteville Mr. John (Bubba) Johnson - Camilla Mr. Vince Falcione - Proctor & Gamble Ms. Nancy Jones - Meriwether County Board of Commissioners Mr. Darell Dunn - Southwest Georgia Regional Development Center Chattahoochee Basin Advisory Committee Mr. Joe Maltese - City of LaGrange, LaGrange Mr. Gerald Anderson - Clay County Commissioners, Ft. Gaines Ms. Clair Muller - City of Atlanta, Atlanta Mr. Denney Rogers - Farm Input Sales, Franklin Mr. Joe Burns - Landscape Industry, Grayson Ms. Dorothy McDaniel - Georgia Conservancy, Columbus Ms. Alex Adams - Upper Chattahoochee Riverkeeper, Atlanta Mr. Kent Iglehart - Roswell City Councilman, Atlanta Mr. Dick Timmerberg - West Point Lake Coalition, LaGrange Mr. William Evans - Georgia Power Company, Atlanta Mr. Peter Frost - Douglas County WSA, Douglas Mr. Jim Butterworth - Habersham County, Clarkesville 79 EPD's Draft Submission to the Water Council, June 28th, 2007 Mr. Jack Conway - Forsyth County Board of Commissioners, Cumming Mr. Tyler Newman - Home Builders Association of Georgia Mr. Bill Lewis - City of Dahlonega, Dahlonega Mr. Bryan Shuler - City of Gainesville, Gainesville Mr. Billy Turner - Columbus Water Works, Columbus Mr. Jim Forbes - Lafarge Aggregates, Lithonia Mr. Terry Snell - William L Bonnell Company, Newnan Mr. Ralph Balkcom - Georgetown Mr. Theron Gay - Coweta County, Newnan Mr. George Williams - Chattahoochee Riverkeeper, Columbus Mr. Rob Kindrick - Land Business, Pine Mountain Mr. Roy Fowler - Cobb-Marietta Water Authority, Marietta Mr. Cliff Chamblee - GP Cedartown, Cedar Springs Mr. Joe Padilla - Woodstock Mr. Sam Chapman - Talmo Ms. Jackie Joseph - Lake Lanier Association, Gainesville Coosa, Tallapoosa, & Tennessee Basin Advisory Committee Mr. Shawn Clouse - The Nature Conservancy, Atlanta Dr. Jerry Jennings - North GA RDC, Rome Mr. Cody Laird - Mountain Conservation Trust of Georgia, Jasper Mr. Joe Cook - Coosa River Basin Initiative, Rome Mr. Sidney Lanier - Georgia Power, Rome Mr. Don Cope - Dalton Utilities, Dalton Mr. Mike Berg - Dawson County Board of Commissioners, Dawsonville Mr. Don Sackman - Sackman Homes, LLC, Canton Ms. Doris Cook - Etowah County Water & Sewer Authority, Dawsonville Mr. George Crowley - City of Calhoun, Council Member, Calhoun Mr. John Bennett - City of Rome, Rome Mr. Stan Bearden - New Riverside Ochre Company, Cartersville Ms. Denise Wood - Mohawk Industries, Dalton Mr. Ken Morrow - Sod Atlanta, Cartersville Ms. Margaret Tanner - MACTEC, Kennesaw Mr. Tom Ritch - Landowner/Business, Rome Mr. Frank Riley - Landowner, Hiawassee Ms. Carrie Hunt - Shaw Industries Group, Dalton Mr. Boyd Austin - Mayor, City of Dallas Mr. Brian Anderson - Whitfield County Commissioners, Dalton Mr. Alfred Thomas - Chickamauga Mr. Robert Barr - Chairman, Carroll County Board of Commissioners Mr. Allen Poole - Haralson County Board of Commissioners Metro Overlay Basin Advisory Committee Mr. Doug Baughman - CH2MHILL, Atlanta Mr. Rick Blackwell - Let's Go Fishing, Union City Mr. Rick Brownlow - Metropolitan North Georgia Water Planning District, Atlanta Dr. Becky Champion - Oxbow Meadows Environmental Learning Center, Columbus Mr. David Dockery - City of Gainesville, Gainesville Ms. Kit Dunlap - Greater Hall Chamber of Commerce, Gainesville Mr. Christopher Ernst - Georgia Mountains RDC, Gainesville Mr. Kevin Green - Metro Atlanta Chamber of Commerce, Atlanta Mr. James Hazelwood - Cumming Mr. Jon Heard - City of Cumming Department of Utilities, Cumming Mr. Rob Hunter - City of Atlanta Department of Watershed Management, Atlanta Ms. Birdel Jackson - B & E Jackson & Associates, Atlanta Mr. John Lawrence - Douglasville Mr. Steven Lofton - Regional Business Coalition, Atlanta Mr. George Martin - Georgia Power, Atlanta Mr. Steve McCullers - Cobb County Water System, Marietta Mr. Dennis McEntire - Newnan Utilities, Newnan Mr. Roy Middlebrooks - Rockdale County Commission, Conyers Mr. Ron Papaleoni - Lake Allatoona Preservation Authority, Acworth Mr. Michael Paris - Council for Quality Growth, Duluth Mr. Michael Patton - Douglas County, Douglasville Mr. Jim Scarbrough - Gwinnett County Department of Public Utilities, Lawrenceville Mr. Frank Sherrill - Walton County Water & Sewer Authority, Social Circle Mr. Mike Kilgallon - Home Builders Association of Georgia, Atlanta Mr. Jim Stafford - City of Cartersville, Cartersville Mr. George Taylor - Oglethorpe Power Corporation, Tucker 80 Georgia's Water Resources: A Blueprint for the Future Ms. Shana Udvardy - Georgia Conservancy, Atlanta Ms. Marty Williams - Marietta Ms. Sally Bethea - Upper Chattahoochee Riverkeeper Statewide Advisory Committee (SAC) The SAC provided EPD with statewide perspectives on Georgia's overarching goals for water management and the array of proposed policy tools. Statewide perspectives were needed to bring the full range of Georgia's geographic, economic, cultural, jurisdictional, and water resource realities into discussions of water management. The committee was primarily composed of representatives of organizations that have statewide constituencies and interest and were appointed to serve by the Governor. The SAC was not asked to reach consensus on specific decisions, but assessed each set of policy option in some detail for the purpose of providing insight from diverse perspectives to help EPD refine and improve Georgia's water management policies and/or options. SAC members were: Mr. Ross King Deputy Director, Association County Commissioners of GA Mr. Bryan Tolar Vice President of Public Affairs, Georgia Agribusiness Council Mr. Terry Christie Chairman of Georgia Association of Regional Development Centers Mr. Jack Dozier Executive Director, Georgia Association of Water Professionals Mr. Reggie Prime Environmental Affairs, Coca-Cola Enterprises; GA Beverage Association Ms. Jamie Higgins Georgia Canoeing Association Mr. Nick Pearson Vice President Government Affairs, Georgia Chamber of Commerce Mr. Jim Stokes President, Georgia Conservancy Mr. John Cardosa Executive Director, Georgia Crushed Stone Association Mr. Cullen Larson Executive Director, Georgia Economic Developers Association Mr. Jon Huffmaster Director, Legislative Department, Georgia Farm Bureau Federation Mr. Steve McWilliams Executive Director, Georgia Forestry Association Mr. Andy Hull Georgia Green Industry Association Mr. Jerry Cook Environmental Manager, Chemical Products Corp.; GA Industry Association Mr. Jim McClatchey Board Member, Georgia Industry Environmental Coalition Mr. Lee Lemke Executive Vice President, Georgia Mining Association Mr. Tom Gehl Government Affairs, Georgia Municipal Association Mr. Charles Huling Vice President of Governmental Affairs, Georgia Power Mr. Charles Hood Georgia Pacific; Georgia Pulp & Paper Ms. April Ingle Executive Director, Georgia River Network Mr. David Kubala Georgia Rural Water Association Ms. Denise Wood Georgia Textile Manufacturing Association Mr. Aaron McWhorter Georgia Turfgrass Association Mr. Tim Williams Home Builders Association of Georgia Mr. Charles Manning Senior Vice President, Municipal Electric Authority of Georgia Ms. Tavia McCuean State Director, The Nature Conservancy Mr. Berry Collett Georgia State Golf Association Mr. Glen Dowling Georgia Wildlife Federation Ms. Pat Stevens At Large Mr. Lindsay Thomas At Large Mr. Brad Currey At Large Mr. Donnie Smith At Large Policy Research, Facilitation and Technical Writing The Environmental Protection Division appreciates the policy research conducted by Dr. Jim Kundell and colleagues at the Carl Vinson Institute of Government - University of Georgia which, along with other reference materials, provided background for BAC and SAC discussion packets. The Environmental Protection Division also wishes to extend their appreciation to the Fanning Institute - University of Georgia for their assistance with meeting facilitation and development of support materials. In addition, Ms. Leigh Askew, Ms. Raye Rawls, and Ms. Courtney Tobin deserve a special thanks for all their efforts in helping with the development of the draft Comprehensive Statewide Water Management Plan as well as the other documents comprising Georgia's Water Resources: A Blueprint for the Future. The Fanning Institute was helped throughout the Basin Advisory Committee process and during the Town Hall meetings by the following individuals: Ansley Barton, Chris Carlston, Elaine Cheney, Miriam Cummings, Heather Fatzinger, Jim Feldt, Tim Hedeen, Eleanor Hooks, David Hooker, Doug Hooker, Dan Hope, Inga Kennedy, Myke Harris Long, Kirsten Ohlander, Susan Raines, Adam Saslow and Wally Tanksley. The Environmental Protection Division extends its gratitude to Ms. Marjorie Snook of Newfields LLC for her technical writing and editing assistance as well as to the staff of Yellobee Studio for their graphics and layout support. 81