Georgia drought report

19982000 Georgia Drought Report
Environmental Protection Division Georgia Department of Natural Resources
We never know the worth of water
english proverb
'til the well is dry.
1

19982000 Georgia Drought Report

2 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 4 INTRODUCTION 5 BACKGROUND
5 Understanding Drought
5 Drought Indicators 12 DROUGHT MANAGEMENT
1 2 Supply Management 12 Federal Initiatives 13 State Initiatives 13 Local Initiatives
15 Demand Management 15 State Initiatives 17 Local Initiatives 17 Evaluation of Drought Management Actions
18 DROUGHT IMPACTS 18 Environmental 19 Economic 19 Agricultural 20 Commercial 20 Industrial 20 Social 21 Municipal Systems 23 Private Systems

24 VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT 24 North of Fall Line 24 Mountains Region 24 Piedmont Region 25 South of Fall Line 25 Atlantic Coastal Plain Region 25 Gulf Coastal Plain Region 26 Critical/Watch Communities 28 Population Growth and Water Use
29 REDUCING GEORGIA'S VULNERABILITY 29 Managing Water Supply 29 Surface Water Sources 32 Groundwater Sources 33 Infrastructure/Interconnections 33 Managing Water Demand 33 Conservation 34 Pricing Strategies 34 Re-use 35 Education and Collaboration 35 Success Stories 36 Drought Planning and Response
37 RECOMMENDATIONS 38 APPENDIX 44 SELECTED REFERENCES

Executive Summary

As of November 2000, severe to extreme drought conditions persist across much of the state. Average statewide precipitation deficits, which have accumulated since May 1998, range from 20 to 30 inches below normal, with some individual gages reporting rainfall shortages close to 50 inches.
During the summer of 2000, groundwater levels reached their lowest recorded levels in almost every aquifer of the state and water levels continue to decline in many areas. Many surface water sources set new record low stream flow rates across the state as well, with records being broken for gages that have been monitored for almost 100 years.
According to the US Army Corps of Engineers (COE), water levels in many of Georgia's federal reservoirs continue to decline and are expected to reach their winter low levels weeks ahead of schedule--which means Lake Lanier may break its all-time record low level.
Although sporadic rainfall during the late summer and fall of 2000 provided limited relief for some parts of the state, this prolonged drought is by no means over. Drought conditions will likely persist into the summer of 2001 if adequate rain does not fall during the winter and spring months.
This drought has intensified steadily since May 1998, and its impacts are already significant, though not yet fully realized. The drought has progressed through four stages--meteorological, agricultural, hydrological and socio-economic. Each stage has resulted in separate but related consequences for human and wildlife populations that depend on Georgia's water resources for sustenance and economic prosperity.

The Environmental Protection Division (EPD) of the Georgia Department of Natural Resources (DNR) has been continuously monitoring the situation and working with other state agencies and local authorities to respond. Non-essential outdoor water use has been restricted on a statewide basis to help manage water supply and raise public awareness about the importance of water conservation.
State and local governments in Georgia have been preparing for decades to meet water supply needs during drought. Since Georgia's last major drought in 198688, much progress has been made. New or expanded drinking water systems have been established, water supply reservoirs have been constructed, drought contingency and emergency plans have been developed and local ordinances have been adopted to impose water use restrictions.
It is a tribute to these efforts that despite the worst drought in Georgia's history and despite the tremendous population growth over the last two decades, most Georgia communities have not yet experienced true suffering in terms of water supply. In fact, most communities only restricted the hours of outside water usage--an inconvenience to homeowners and some businesses, but hardly a major inconvenience considering alternative scenarios.
Some of Georgia's communities, however, did face serious water shortages during the summer of 2000. Twenty-three cities and five counties reported a drinking water supply of thirty days or less at least once during the summer; and thirtynine additional communities reported significant concern--indicating that their supplies were close to critical levels.

2

Thirteen of the communities on the August 2000 critical/watch list were also on the 1988 critical water supply list, indicating that a lack of preparedness, rather than increased demand, may be the biggest factor contributing to vulnerability for these communities. It appears that even without population growth that occurred over the last decade, several of these communities still would not have had sufficient supplies, storage or infrastructure to handle their water needs during the current drought.
In contrast, there are twenty-five communities that were on the 1988 critical list, that are not on the 2000 critical list. Many of these communities can attribute their stable water supply to various pro-active supply management actions, such as building reservoirs, maximizing use of available ground and surface water sources and interconnecting with other water systems.
Due to delays in the federal permitting process and complications resulting from the tri-state water negotiations, the 1989 Georgia Water Supply Act authorizing funding for regional reservoirs has not resulted in the construction of any new reservoir projects, though the original legislation still exists to support future water supply projects. Many communities have taken it upon themselves to move forward with independent and multi-jurisdictional reservoir projects without the benefit of funding support from the state.
Unfortunately, many more communities have limited capabilities to coordinate and fund their own reservoir projects. For many regions in the state, reservoir projects facilitated by the Georgia Water Supply Act and designed to meet water demand with minimum impact to the environment may be the most cost effective option for reducing drought vulnerability.

Georgia faces many challenges in its quest for a sustainable water supply, and water conservation must become an integral component of effective water resource management. The northern part of the state must meet the water supply needs of a rapidly growing population in an area with relatively low stream flow rates and very limited groundwater reserves. Water supplies in the southeast region of the state are threatened by saltwater intrusion into fresh water aquifers due to declining water tables. And in the southwest region of the state, depletion of groundwater sources and reductions in stream flows linked to crop irrigation is affecting drinking water supplies and agricultural production.
In other words, fresh water sources in several regions of the state may be approaching their sustainable limits. Consequently, water uses must be prioritized and water conservation must become the norm rather than a last resort during times of crisis.
Initiatives to manage water resources effectively can only be achieved through cooperation and collaboration among Georgia's eight million citizens. Individuals must conserve water at home and at work. Businesses and industries across the state must find more efficient ways to use water and eliminate waste. Farmers must help find solutions that reduce their irrigation needs while protecting their crops. And local governments must drought-proof themselves before the next drought through interconnections with neighbors, increased storage capacity and aggressive conservation programs.
The six recommendations provided here are designed to supplement actions taken by all Georgians to better manage their water resources, and can be facilitated by a number of state agencies, including EPD.
3

1. Emergency Relief: The State of Georgia should provide emergency grants and loans to assist local governments with critical or threatened water supplies.
2. Water Conservation: The State of Georgia must develop a comprehensive water conservation plan to address a wide range of water conserving measures that can be implemented to reduce water demand in Georgia.
3. Water Supply: The State of Georgia must fund implementation of the Water Supply Act of 1989 to build regional reservoirs to effectively address the long-term water supply needs of Georgia's communities.
4. Agricultural Water Use: The State of Georgia must develop an effective method to evaluate consumptive use of water for agricultural irrigation, and implement programs for reducing water use while protecting the prosperity of farmers and agricultural communities.
5. State Water Plan: The State of Georgia must perform a detailed review of existing water policy and laws and develop a comprehensive state water plan that will provide the framework and support for effective management of Georgia's water resources.
6. State Drought Plan: The State of Georgia must continue developing a comprehensive drought plan and drought management process in order to implement appropriate drought response, preparedness and mitigation measures in future droughts.

Water is the most common substance on earth, covering approximately 70 percent of the planet's surface. In Georgia alone, there are more than 71,000 miles of streams, 5 million acres of wetlands, 420,000 acres of public lakes and 100 miles of coastline. With these statistics, it seems unimaginable that water could ever be a scarce natural resource. But it is-- especially during drought.

INTRODUCTION
Georgia is currently, as of November 2000, confronting severe to extreme drought conditions across much of the state. This drought has intensified steadily over the last two to three years and its impacts are already significant, though not yet fully realized. Although sporadic rainfall during the late summer of 2000 provided limited relief for some parts of the state, this prolonged drought is by no means over. Drought conditions will likely persist into the summer of 2001 if adequate rain is not received during the fall and winter months.
The Environmental Protection Division (EPD) of the Georgia Department of Natural Resources (DNR) has been continuously monitoring the situation and working with other state agencies and local authorities to respond. For example, state drought response and planning meetings have been held throughout the summer and fall of 2000 to address the drought's progression, impacts, response and mitigation efforts. This drought has presented several challenges for Georgia; and from these challenges, unique opportunities have also emerged. Perhaps the most significant opportunity is to learn from mistakes and build upon successes during a period of increasing public awareness about the potentially devastating effects of drought.

The purpose of this report is to document and evaluate the management actions implemented by state and local authorities during the drought of 1998-2000; to provide a summary of drought impacts and an objective assessment of the state's vulnerability and mitigation efforts; and to present a clear set of recommendations for improving drought preparedness and response.
In preparing this report, data and information were obtained from various resources, including: Georgia's citizens, water utility managers, members of the scientific and academic community and representatives from local, state and federal government. This report is intended to serve as an overview and reference tool for policymakers and concerned citizens in the State of Georgia, but does not present detailed technical data or a comprehensive water management plan. It is, in fact, a first installment of a much bigger effort to develop state drought and water plans.
The report begins by providing background information about drought and its progression across the State of Georgia. Sections two and three include descriptive information and analyses of past and present drought management actions, and a summary of the impacts of the current drought. Sections four and five assess the state's regional vulnerability to drought and propose solutions for reducing this vulnerability. The final section of the report will provide recommendations for drought response, particularly for communities with critical water supplies; and recommendations designed to prepare for and mitigate the effects of future drought resulting from natural climate variability and increasing demands on the state's limited water resources.

4

BACKGROUND
Understanding Drought
Before addressing drought impacts, vulnerabilities, response and mitigation, it is important to understand the concept of drought. This is a complicated task since a universally accepted definition does not exist. The Oxford dictionary defines drought broadly as "the continuous absence of rain; dry weather." The State Climate Office at the University of Georgia-Athens defines drought as "abnormally dry weather sufficiently prolonged to cause serious hydrological imbalances." The National Drought Mitigation Center at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln, provides several definitions for drought, but offers this general overview: "drought is a shortfall in precipitation that creates a shortage of water, whether for crops, utilities, municipal water supplies, recreation, wildlife or other purposes." Although specific definitions vary, most climate experts agree that drought can be characterized as a climate extreme; and climate extremes have been and will continue to be a normal part of the Earth's climatologic cycle.
The duration and severity of drought depends upon the hydrologic cycle and a region's water budget. In simple terms, a water budget consists of inputs and outputs. Inputs include precipitation--in the form of rain, sleet, hail and snow--that flows into surface water sources and also permeates the soil to supplement groundwater sources through a process called recharge. Surface water sources include rivers, lakes, ponds and streams. Groundwater sources are primarily aquifers. An aquifer is a geologic formation that can yield usable amounts of water found in saturated layers of sand, gravel or sedimentary rock, or in fractures in crystalline rock. Outputs consist of the natural processes of evaporation and plant transpiration, and water withdrawals for human use and consumption. When outputs exceed inputs for a prolonged period, the water budget

becomes out of balance, and drought can occur-- as it has in Georgia.
Another complication in understanding drought is determining its onset. A drought's beginning can only be determined by looking backward. In Georgia, lower than normal precipitation began in late spring of 1998. Had precipitation resumed to normal levels within a few months, Georgia would not have experienced drought. But because precipitation continued below normal over an extended period--for about two and a half years so far--Georgia is now experiencing a severe drought. By looking back to when the pattern of dry weather began, the onset of Georgia's current drought is estimated as May 1998.
Just as it is difficult to determine when a drought started, it is equally difficult to predict when it will end. Experts are unable to accurately predict either the beginning or end of drought because it depends upon the ability to forecast precipitation and temperature. Since climate is highly variable, long-range forecasts have limited reliability. To complicate matters further, resuming normal (or even above normal) levels of rainfall may not end a prolonged drought quickly. This is because the rainfall shortage accumulates over the entire period of drought.
Although a severe storm may supply several inches of much needed rain, the accumulated rainfall deficit may be as high as fifty inches, as in the case of one rainfall gage station in Gainesville, Georgia. In addition, heavy rain may dump a lot of water quickly, but drought-stressed areas will not be able to absorb the water into the ground where it is needed most. The result can be soil erosion, flooded streets and toppled trees. According to the State Climatologist, Dr. David Stooksbury, the ideal rate of rainfall needed to avoid flooding and absorb moisture into the ground is onetenth of an inch per hour for a twenty-four hour time period. Many periods of slow, steady rain are needed to end Georgia's drought.

Drought indicators
Most drought experts agree that when drought occurs, it progresses in stages. The first stage of drought is meteorological drought. Meteorological drought occurs when precipitation falls below normal levels, and is usually the first indicator because it can develop quickly. This type of drought is normally expressed as a `rainfall deficit,' in a measure of deviation from normal-- such as inches below normal, or a percentile.
The second stage of drought is agricultural drought. This type of drought occurs when the amount of moisture in the soil no longer meets the needs of a particular crop. When meteorological drought occurs at a critical time of year, it can result in water deficient topsoil, which may hinder germination, and reduce crop yield-- especially if moisture is not replenished during the growing season. This type of drought is usually measured in soil moisture levels and can be devastating to agricultural communities.
Hydrological drought is the third stage of drought. This type of drought occurs when surface and subsurface (ground) water supplies fall below normal levels due to prolonged meteorological drought. Indicators of hydrological drought include decreased stream flow rates (measured in cubic feet per second, or cfs), lake elevations and groundwater levels. Hydrological drought can be detrimental to the environment, upsetting the hydrologic cycle and impacting fish, wildlife and plant species.
If hydrological drought persists for prolonged periods, demand for water may exceed supply, leading to the fourth stage--socio-economic drought. A socioeconomic drought can take many months, or even years to develop, often with devastating social and economic consequences for the people who are dependent upon water resources for health, drinking water and jobs.
Although each stage has its own distinct set of characteristics and indicators, they are also very interconnected. Generally, the sequence of indicators follows this pattern: Climate variability leads to precipitation

5

Figure 1. National Drought Monitor Maps of Southeast U.S.
Source: National Drought Monitor, adapted by EPD
Exceptional drought Extreme drought Severe drought First stage drought Abnormally dry

May 20, 1999

August 31, 1999

November 30, 1999

February 2, 2000

May 30, 2000

June 27, 2000

July 25, 2000 6

August 29, 2000

deficits, which causes meteorological drought. Meteorological drought leads to deficient soil moisture, which causes agricultural drought. Continued meteorological drought leads to hydrological drought--first by reducing surface water levels, then by reducing groundwater levels. And finally, if meteorological drought persists, agricultural and hydrological drought will eventually result in socio-economic drought where water supplies become critical, potentially threatening human health and prosperity. Since May 1998, all four stages of drought have occurred in different areas of Georgia.
Many indicators can be used to examine the progression and severity of the 19982000 drought. Five different indicators are presented here to provide evidence of meteorological and hydrological drought in Georgia. Three of these illustrations also include data from Georgia's last drought, which occurred during 1986, 1987 and 1988. This historic data is intended to serve as a frame of reference only. It is not possible to draw conclusive comparisons between the current drought and the drought of 198688 simply because there are many other variables to consider--such as population growth and development over the last decade and variation in data collection, analysis and management. Nonetheless, it does offer some interesting comparisons and supporting information for later discussions in this report.
Figure 1 (left) provides a series of eight regional maps adapted from the National Drought Monitor. The National Drought Monitor integrates six different drought indices, such as rainfall and stream flow, into one combined qualitative measure of drought severity. These maps demonstrate the steady progression of drought across the Southeast region of the United States over a fifteen-month period. Areas of the state ranged from abnormally dry and first stage drought conditions in May 1999 to severe, extreme and exceptional drought during the summer of 2000. These maps focus on widespread drought, though local conditions may vary.

Figure 2 (right) presents statewide precipitation deficits--or rainfall shortages--that have accumulated between May 1998 and August 2000. These deficits are compared to deficits accumulated during Georgia's last drought in 198688. Precipitation data from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and the state climate office in Athens, Georgia were grouped into 9 climate divisions to offer insight to regional trends. Because the number of precipitation gages varies in each division and rainfall is sporadic, these regional averages may be higher or lower than values recorded at individual gage stations. The values shown represent the number of inches that rainfall deviates from normal. For the period May 1998 to August 2000, accumulated rainfall shortages range from just over 20 inches in North Central Georgia to just over 30 inches in West Central Georgia. As the figure illustrates, deficits are significant across the entire state; and values for this drought are greater than those during the '86'88 drought for all but two regions of the state.

Figure 2. Accumulated Precipitation Deficits for Nine Climate Regions of Georgia, May 1986August 1988 and May 1998August 2000
Source: Prepared by EPD using data from NOAA and GA State Climate Office

-23.28 -25.44

-20.30 -21.33

-19.37 -20.93

-30.90 -11.36

-25.51 -10.39

-21.79 -8.20

-23.58 -14.18

-22.27 -0.51

-24.92 -8.21

Deficits expressed as inches below normal.
-00.00=May 1998August 2000 -00.00=May 1986August 1988

7

Figure 3. New Record Low Stream Flows and Groundwater Levels in Georgia, May 1998October 2000
Source: Prepared by EPD using data from USGS
Groundwater monitoring wells with record lows Stream flow monitoring gages with record lows

Figure 3 (left) identifies locations where new record low stream flows and groundwater levels occurred across the state between May 1998 and October 2000. Current and historic data for both groundwater levels and stream flow is available through a network of wells and streams monitored and maintained by the U.S. Geologic Survey (USGS) in a cooperative effort with EPD and various cities, counties and authorities in Georgia.
Groundwater levels were at their lowest levels of record in almost every aquifer in the state; and many that have not set record lows are still declining. Eightytwo different wells set new records during the 98-00 drought. Some of these wells set more than one record during the 30-month drought beginning in May 1998, for a total of 138 new record lows across the state. In 1998, only 7 percent of all USGS-monitored wells set new records, compared to 34 percent in 1999 and 70 percent in 2000. This progression illustrates the increasing severity of the drought over the 30-month period. Approximately 55 percent of the wells setting new records during this drought have been monitored only 20 years or less. The remaining 45 percent of recordbreaking wells have been monitored for over 20 years, with the oldest being monitored for almost 50 years.

Although there are fewer gages recording stream flow rates, they have been in use, on average, for a much longer period than monitored wells. Most gages have been monitored since the 1930's or earlier; the oldest gage has been recording stream flow for over 100 years--since 1897. However, some of these gages were not monitored consistently over the years and have gaps in record keeping during critical dry periods such as 1954, 1986 and 1988. In addition, large dams regulate the flows of some streams--such as the Chattahoochee River--thereby influencing the `natural' rate of flow.
Despite these considerations, six new records were set for the lowest average daily flow between May 1998 and October 2000, and eight new records were set for lowest average monthly flows. As with monitored wells, many stream flow gages that have not set new records are near their historical lows. An additional eight gages measured flows that were within 10 percent of the record daily or monthly low flow for the same period. A breakdown by basin shows that 80 percent of the gages in the Altamaha, 75 percent in the Flint, 50 percent in the Savannah, 40 percent in the Chattahoochee and 25 percent in the Coosa recorded flows that were either record lows or within 10 percent of the previous record low value. This analysis includes data from only 26 gages, though there are many more gages for which data was unavailable. Data for specific wells and stream gages are included in Tables A1 and A2 in the Appendix.

8

Streamf low, cfs

Figure 4 (below) illustrates the annual average rate of daily stream flow for selected gages around the state. The data compare average annual daily flow for the period of record to average daily flow for the years 1988 and 2000. Note that 2000 averages are calculated without data for November and December. This illustration indicates that 2000 average daily flows are well below the historical average, and significantly lower than 1988 averages for several gages.

Figure 4. Comparison of Average Annual Stream Flows for Selected Gages in Georgia for Period of Record, 1988 and 2000
Source: Prepared by EPD using data from USGS
(AADF) Long-term average annual daily flow (ADF 88) Average daily flow, 1988 (ADF 00) Average daily flow, 2000

Satilla River at Waycross
1200 1068
800 842

4000
0 AADF ADF 88

263
ADF 00

Spring Creek at Iron City 600

400

511

200

0 AADF

386
ADF 88

65
ADF 00

Altamaha River at Doctortown 16000

12000

13920

8000 4000

6643 6106

0

AADF ADF

ADF

88

00

Flint River at Montezuma

4000

3000

3583

2000 1000

1815 1332

0

AADF

ADF

ADF

88

00

Flint River at Newton 8000

6000 6697

4000 2000

3884

0

AADF

ADF

88

2956
ADF 00

Broad River at Bell 2000
1818 1500

1000 500

828 686

0

AADF ADF

ADF

88

00

Ichawaynochaway Creek at Milford 900

786 600
491 300
276

0

AADF ADF

ADF

88

00

Ocmulgee River at Macon

3000 2000

2719

1000

1317

1143

0

AADF ADF

ADF

88

00

Streamf low, cfs

9

Full pool Year 1988 Year 2000

Elevation in feet

Elevation in feet

Figure 5. Annual Elevation Levels for Selected Reservoirs in Georgia for Full Pool, 1988 and 2000 Levels
Source: Prepared by EPD using data from COE
Lake Lanier 1075 1070 1065 1060 1055 1050 1045 1040 1035
01 Jan 01 Feb 01 Mar 01 Apr 01 May 01 Jun 01 Jul 01 Aug 01 Sep 01 Oct 01 Nov 01 Dec
Lake Walter F. George 191 190 189 188 187 186 184 183 182 181
01 Jan 01 Feb 01 Mar 01 Apr 01 May 01 Jun 01 Jul 01 Aug 01 Sep 01 Oct 01 Nov 01 Dec

Figure 5 (this spread) illustrates elevation levels during 1988 and 2000, compared to full pool levels (a term used to describe the desired operating level), for selected federal reservoirs across the state. The Army Corps of Engineers (COE) reports that reservoir levels across the state have declined from 1999 to 2000 due to the prolonged drought. Below normal inflows to Lake Lanier began in June 1998; and its record low level-- 1,052 feet above mean sea level (msl), set in 1981-- may be broken by the end of 2000 if significant rain does not fall. The last time Lake Lanier was full was June 30, 1998. Natural lake inflows are currently low or non-existent, forcing water supply and environmental needs to be met almost entirely by stored water.
The charts on this page demonstrate that although reservoir levels were relatively high heading into the dry summer months of 2000, the lack of rainfall combined with releases to support regional populations and downstream needs quickly dropped elevations equal to or below 1988 and full pool levels. In many of Georgia's federal reservoirs, elevations continue to decline and are expected to reach their winter low levels weeks ahead of schedule.

10

Elevation in feet

Elevation in feet

Lake Allatoona 850 845 835 830 825 820 815 805 800
01 Jan 01 Feb 01 Mar 01 Apr 01 May 01 Jun 01 Jul 01 Aug 01 Sep 01 Oct 01 Nov 01 Dec
Lake Hartwell 670 665 660 655 650 645 640 635 630
01 Jan 01 Feb 01 Mar 01 Apr 01 May 01 Jun 01 Jul 01 Aug 01 Sep 01 Oct 01 Nov 01 Dec
11

Carters Lake 1080 1077 1070 1065 1060 1055 1050 1045 1040
01 Jan 01 Feb 01 Mar 01 Apr 01 May 01 Jun 01 Jul 01 Aug 01 Sep 01 Oct 01 Nov 01 Dec
Lake West Point 540 635 630 625 620 615 610
01 Jan 01 Feb 01 Mar 01 Apr 01 May 01 Jun 01 Jul 01 Aug 01 Sep 01 Oct 01 Nov 01 Dec

DROUGHT MANAGEMENT
The background information presented in the preceding section should leave no doubt that Georgia is indeed experiencing a serious drought. Federal, state, and local officials are also well aware of the current drought, and many have experience dealing with past droughts too. This section describes some of the management actions implemented throughout the state to respond to and prepare for drought and concludes with a summary evaluation of past and present drought management in Georgia. For the purposes of this report, drought management initiatives are separated into supply and demand management.

Supply Management
Supply management actions refer to initiatives designed to protect, maintain and/or increase the quantity and quality of water supplies in order to meet and balance water demands for human and environmental purposes. Supply management actions include efforts to develop, establish, improve or increase water sources, storage, distribution, infrastructure and interconnections with other water systems.
Federal Initiatives The United States Army Corps of Engineers (COE) operates nine federal reservoirs across the State of Georgia. These reservoirs support human, fish and wildlife populations and serve many purposes: including hydropower, recreation, navigation, flood control, water quality and water supply. Water flowing into the reservoirs is supplied by rainfall and natural inflows from rivers and tributaries, but releases from the lakes are regulated by the COE to meet highly variable demands from many different water users. COE officials confer weekly with representatives from various interests to make water management decisions for the upcoming week.
The COE has defined several different action zones for each reservoir that serve as basic guidelines for operating the river systems supporting each lake. These zones are used to determine the correct balance for hydropower generation and navigation assistance that will still allow reservoirs to meet water quality and supply needs. According to the COE, water releases from several COE projects have been reduced over much of 2000 because of extreme drought conditions. Whenever possible, off-system energy purchases are being made to reduce the need for hydropower generation, so that reservoir releases can be limited to supporting water quality and water supply needs.

12

In the Upper Chattahoochee and Coosa River Basins, reservoir levels were preserved through reductions in hydropower releases as early as the fall of 1998 and continued through 1999 and much of 2000 as inflows to the lakes began to decline. During 2000, the elevations of Lake Lanier would have been much lower if the COE had not operated Lanier in 1999 and 2000 as if drought were imminent.
Lake Lanier (Chattahoochee River Basin), Lake Allatoona and Carters Lake (Coosa River Basin) are all located in the upper extremities of river basins, and therefore have relatively small drainage areas. Lanier drains 1,044 square miles, while Allatoona drains 1,110 square miles and Carters Lake drains only 376 square miles. Lanier has almost 4 times the storage capacity of Allatoona (almost 6 times as much as Carters Lake), and therefore filling of Lanier occurs at a much slower pace than either Allatoona or Carters. While declining, the lake elevations at both Lanier and Allatoona have remained above their minimum operating zones during the 30+ months of drought. However, the pace at which the lake levels are declining will quicken if the current drought persists.
The lower lakes of the Chattahoochee did not fare as well in 2000. The COE released water from Lakes Seminole and Walter F. George in late April to produce a two-week period in which barge navigation could occur on the Apalachicola River downstream from Lake Seminole. Due to lack of rainfall, the reservoirs did not re-fill after the releases were made. As a result, the Corps increased releases from Lake West Point and Lake Lanier to supply water (that normally would have been released from Lakes Seminole and George) to support downstream needs in Florida. This action, combined with low inflows to the lakes, triggered a decline in elevation of Lake Lanier over the late summer of 2000. The COE predicts that Lake Lanier will not refill to the top of the conservation pool over the forecasted normal winter and spring 2001, and that the elevation of the lake may drop to an all-time record low of 1050 by December 2000.

State Initiatives Supply management actions initiated at the state level include coastal groundwater strategies (addressed under state demand management initiatives later in this section); river basin management strategies such as the development of river basin management plans for the state's sixteen river basins; and surface/groundwater permitting programs that facilitate the effective and responsible management of water resources. As with demand management actions, state supply management initiatives focus primarily on providing guidelines, framework and assistance to local authorities to develop effective water resource planning and management programs.
One supply management action that has been part of Georgia's water management repertoire for more than 20 years is a stipulation that water utilities using surface water sources must make provisions to protect a certain minimum stream flow. This requirement prohibits withdrawers from reducing stream flows to unacceptably low levels during periods when Mother Nature gives us a greatly reduced quantity of water. During these periods of extended low flows, water utilities must seek other supply sources, and most often (for surface water users) this implies the need to construct a water supply reservoir. When properly sized, these reservoirs provide a reliable source of water for human consumption during droughts. These reservoirs also help to greatly minimize the adverse impacts that man's use of water during droughts might otherwise have on the aquatic ecosystem.

The state also has legislation in place to support the development of regional reservoir projects, but it has met with limited success for various complex reasons, some of which are addressed below. The 1989 Georgia Water Supply Act authorizes DNR to initiate water supply projects--such as regional reservoirs--and secure funding for the acquisition of property, construction, reconstruction or improvement of regional reservoirs designed to meet the long term water supply needs of multiple jurisdictions. Thirteen regional reservoirs were originally proposed under the legislation. The original thirteen proposed reservoirs were reduced to six in January 1992.
To date, only one project--the West Georgia Regional Reservoir (WGRR)--has received funding through the General Assembly. Construction of this reservoir has been delayed due to the tri-state water negotiations among Georgia, Alabama and Florida. The West Georgia Regional Water Authority submitted a revised application to the Corps of Engineers for the required federal permit in May 1999. The states are still in the process of negotiating an allocation formula for their shared water resources.
Local Initiatives There have been numerous supply management actions initiated at local levels across the state. Drilling new wells and applying for new and modified withdrawal permits have secured new water sources for many cities and counties. Storage capacity has increased through the construction and improvement of storage tanks and treatment facilities. And many communities have improved their infrastructure and expanded interconnections with other water systems to assure distribution of water to meet their resident's needs during

13

Table 1. Reservoir Projects Permitted in Georgia since 1983
Source: EPD Water Resources Branch

Reservoir Name Town Creek Cornish Creek Big Haynes Creek Towaliga/Long Branch Lazer Creek Mountain Creek Dog River Turner Creek Hollis Lathem Horton Creek Lake Kedron J.W. Smith/ Upper Shoal Creek Edgar Blalock Jr. Lake Walnut Creek Edie Creek Tobesofkee Creek Beaverdam Creek Laurel Lane Bear Creek Sandy/Brown Creek Yahoola Creek Bear Creek Cedar Creek Hudson R. Tributary

River Basin Ocmulgee Ocmulgee Ocmulgee Ocmulgee Flint Savannah Chattahoochee Chattahoochee Coosa Flint Flint

County Bibb Newton Rockdale Henry Meriwether Banks Douglas White Cherokee Fayette Fayette

Flint Ocmulgee Ocmulgee Ocmulgee Ocmulgee Ocmulgee Oconee Chattahoochee Chattahoochee Chattahoochee Oconee Oconoee Savannah

Clayton Clayton Henry Lamar Monroe Walton Barrow Douglas Coweta Lumpkin Jackson Hall Banks

Surface Area (acres) 670 820 550 1066/227 195 49 215 48 334 780 238

Potential Yield (mgd) 61 24 24 25 2 1 9 2 22 15 5

Date Reservoir Completed Constructed but not in service 1992 Constructed but not in service 1994/1995 1993 1994 1993 1990 Constructed but not in service 1997 1987

240/400

17

263

10

108

2

159

4

117

5

223

10

14.5

2

40

6

735

12

141

17

502

42

143

1

65

2

1985/1999 1989 1988 2000 1986 1999 1989 1980 1997 Under construction Under construction Not yet constructed Not yet constructed

14

drought conditions. Most importantly, many community and multi-jurisdictional reservoirs have been constructed, which have undoubtedly helped carry these communities through the drought. Table 1 (left) provides a list of reservoir projects that have been permitted and constructed since the 1980's.
In addition, local authorities have increased the efficiency and effectiveness of water treatment and distribution through infrastructure improvements and expanded interconnections with other water systems. These supply management actions were initiated to better prepare for water shortages caused by increased demand due to growth and development, compounded by natural drought. According to one water utility manager in the metro Atlanta region, 75 percent of their current system interconnections have been established since the 1988 drought.
Demand Management
Demand management actions refer to initiatives designed to curb or control the amount of water used for various purposes. In drought, when the supply of water declines due to natural causes, demand for water often increases. This increased demand creates additional pressure on the state's limited water resources, adding to existing supply problems. Demand management actions designed to reduce water use include mandatory and voluntary outdoor watering restrictions, indoor water use controls, restrictions for industrial and commercial water use, water pricing strategies, water recycling and re-use, drought contingency and water conservation planning, and a myriad of conservation and education programs.

State Initiatives Traditionally, Georgia has encouraged responsibility for managing water demand at local levels by requiring drought contingency plans as part of water withdrawal permit applications. In 1990, Georgia's Water Quality Control Rules for Surface Water Withdrawals were amended to require a water conservation plan for all new or modified withdrawal permit applications in excess of 100,000 gallons per month. Conservation plans require the applicant to address specific items including system management, rate-making policies, plumbing ordinances and codes, recycling and re-use, data collection and reporting, long-range planning and drought contingency planning. A 1996 amendment added a 5-year reporting requirement mandating that permittees document their water conservation results five years after issuance of new or modified permits. The first 5-year reports are due in 2001.
Similar rules exist for groundwater withdrawal permit applications under the Georgia Groundwater Use Act, although it includes a more detailed provision for drought planning such as development of drought condition indicators, a potable water use priorities program, low-flow protection and water storage.
A Coastal Groundwater Management Strategy implemented in 1997 to address saltwater intrusion into fresh water aquifers supplying coastal regions of the state resulted in supply and demand management actions, including water conservation measures, which helped mitigate the effects of the current drought in this region. This strategy requires metering on all public water systems-- including public-private systems like subdivisions--and imposes upper limits on withdrawals for the entire region and some individual wells. These limitations apply until at least 2005, when the sound science initiative will be complete, resulting in a sustainable use plan for 24 counties of southeast Georgia. In addition, water supply plans are required of all counties in the 24-county region, and well-monitoring programs have been initiated throughout the region.
The state recently implemented an agricultural use

demand management initiative. The Flint River Drought Protection Act of 2000 establishes a drought irrigation water use reduction program that allows eligible farmers with irrigation permits to receive payments if they suspend irrigating their fields for a specified period during severe drought years. The program, which will be ready for implementation if needed in early 2001, provides a financial incentive to ensure water use reduction during severe droughts. This will promote the wise use of water resources, protection of stream flows, and economic well being of southwest Georgia.
The State of Georgia has implemented demand management actions to reduce residential indoor and outdoor water use as well. A 1990 amendment to the Georgia Water Conservation Act of 1978 requires newly constructed and rehabilitated buildings in Georgia to install lowflow toilets and water-saving showerheads and faucets.
Regarding outdoor water use, EPD required implementation of local water conservation plans, including mandatory and voluntary restrictions in 1986, and called for a 10 percent reduction in water use during the drought of 1988--but did not specify how this reduction should be achieved. For the most part, EPD has relegated decisions to impose watering restrictions to local authorities. EPD has worked with water systems on a case-by-case basis to encourage water-use reductions before considering modification of a withdrawal permit, and has generally avoided imposing water restrictions on commercial or industrial enterprises whenever possible.
Most notable, however, is the action EPD took during the summer of 2000 to reduce non-essential water use through mandatory statewide restrictions. In March, EPD developed a set of triggers for outdoor watering restrictions and circulated it to water utility managers, in an attempt to reach consensus among and between water utilities and EPD. After examining several drought indicators such as rainfall deficits, groundwater levels, stream flow rates and inflows into lakes and reservoirs, EPD made the decision to take action to help those dependent on declining lakes and streams start conserving their water resources.

15

Table 2. Summary of EPD-Mandated Outdoor Water Use Restrictions, Summer 2000
Source: EPD Water Resources Branch

Date June 5

Action EPD mandates water use restrictions

Affected Area 15-county* metro Atlanta region

June 12 EPD increases water use restrictions 15-county* metro Atlanta region

June 19 EPD expands scope of water use restrictions

Statewide

* The 15-county metro Atlanta region includes Bartow, Cherokee, Clayton, Cobb, Coweta, Dekalb, Douglas, Fayette, Forsyth, Fulton, Gwinnett, Hall, Henry, Paulding and Rockdale

Restricted Hours/Days
10 am to 10 pm/ 7 days a week
10 am to 10 pm/ odd/even days only
4 pm to 10 pm/ odd/even days only

Table 2 (left) summarizes the water restrictions mandated by EPD. The first set of restrictions applied only to a 15-county area around metro Atlanta, whose residents were allowed to water seven days a week during non-restricted hours. After consultation with various water utilities, it became apparent that the newly imposed restrictions caused increased demand in the morning hours and on weekends; therefore, a decision was made to add an odd/even day restriction in order to spread out demand and alleviate water pressure and distribution problems.
One week later, EPD expanded the water restrictions to the rest of the state with odd/even day restrictions and six restricted hours per day. This decision to expand the restrictions to counties beyond the metro Atlanta area was made because of reports that many counties outside of the metro Atlanta region were also feeling the effects of this prolonged drought. EPD decided that the entire State of Georgia could benefit from water conserving measures designed to extend water supplies and reduce vulnerability.
The statewide restrictions apply to all residential non-essential use of water. Non-essential uses include watering lawns and landscapes, washing cars, and hosing off sidewalks and driveways. The restrictions do not apply to industries or commercial enterprises that use water outdoors for business purposes. EPD encourages local authorities to adopt restrictions more stringent than the state's on an as-needed basis. Responsibility for enforcement of water restrictions rests with individual counties.
On October 27, 2000, EPD announced that mandatory outdoor watering restrictions would remain in force for the metro Atlanta area and on a statewide basis until further notice. This decision was based on the continuing low stream flows and groundwater levels over much of Georgia, and information from the state climatologist indicating that soil moisture, rainfall deficits and weather forecasts all point toward a continuation of serious drought conditions for the foreseeable future.

16

Local Initiatives Demand management actions implemented locally include a wide range of efforts, with varying degrees of commitment and success. Many municipalities and water utilities have worked independently to develop and implement demand management actions, while others have worked cooperatively on a regional basis to develop policies, procedures and guidelines to promote water conservation. For example, the Atlanta Regional Commission (ARC) has worked with water utility managers in the metro Atlanta area to develop a regional water supply plan that describes water systems in the region, forecasts future demand, identifies issue areas and recommends sources, allocations, research and policy development needs. The ARC plan also establishes water use guidelines, including phased water restrictions designed to control demand when supplies are threatened.
Across the state, water pricing strategies range from declining block rate structures that make water cheaper at higher levels of use--to flat rate structures where water prices remain constant regardless of the amount used--to inclining block rate structures that increase the price of water at higher levels of use. Some water utilities also include a surcharge during peak use periods such as summer months and/or offer varying or capped sewer charges.
Counties, cities and water utilities also implement a wide range of public assistance and education programs to promote water conservation. Some municipalities include an insert in water bills once a year or have fliers on hand for distribution to walk-in customers, while others take a more aggressive role by working cooperatively with teachers to develop educational programs for school children and landscape professionals to develop seminars for gardeners and homeowners.

Some water utilities also provide public assistance programs to promote wise water use, including mass mailings of low flow devices and toilet leak test kits. Other water utilities have initiated efforts to reduce demand by pioneering water re-use programs, primarily targeted for lawn irrigation in golf courses, commercial and residential developments.
Municipalities and water utilities in Georiga have traditionally viewed water restrictions as a reactive measure that may become necessary during times of crisis. Prior to the current drought, many municipalities with water supply or distribution problems have implemented mandatory and voluntary reductions in water use without being prompted by EPD, particularly during the 198688 drought. During the summer 2000, several counties implemented mandatory water use restrictions that were more stringent than the state-mandated restrictions. Some counties, including Carroll and Coweta, as well as the Cities of Griffin, Newnan and Carrollton, implemented total outdoor water use bans, while many others increased the number of days and/ or hours of restricted use. In addition, some cities and counties with critical water supplies during the summer of 2000 added water restrictions to commercial uses to supplement residential restrictions.
Evaluation of Drought Management Actions In an effort to evaluate the effectiveness of Georgia's drought management actions, EPD conducted informal interviews with several water utility managers across the state during the month of August 2000. Water managers were asked a series of open-ended questions to obtain subjective opinions about demand management, supply management, and the role of different levels of government in preparing for and reducing vulnerability to drought. Although responses were based on anecdotal information from a small, non-random sample, some common themes emerged.
The majority of water managers interviewed considered supply management actions to be the most important element in drought planning. These managers

viewed initiatives to increase water withdrawals, storage capacity and interconnections as pro-active drought planning efforts; and demand management as a reactive measure, necessary only during times of crisis.
When asked to evaluate the effectiveness of the state-mandated watering restrictions implemented during the 2000 summer in reducing demand, responses varied widely. Some water managers felt confident that restrictions reduced water demand (especially if they implemented restrictions more stringent than the state's), while others felt it had no impact. Still some managers contend that the restrictions were detrimental and actually increased demand--causing people who would not normally water their lawns to do so, simply because it was `their day to water.'
Many managers agreed that restrictions did help shave peak usage and level out water demand, allowing them to meet distribution needs during heavy use periods. Every water manager interviewed commented that the biggest positive impact of the water restrictions was in increasing public awareness about water resources and drought. One manager said that restrictions helped change attitudes by sending a message that during drought, "a brown lawn is a sign of virtue."
Water managers were asked for recommendations to improve management actions implemented during the current drought. One clear recommendation is that communication about state-mandated restrictions needs to improve. The majority of those interviewed felt that their lead-time was insufficient to coordinate communication with stakeholders and enforcement efforts. In addition, many felt that the restrictions themselves were difficult to interpret and explain and offered various recommendations on how they could be more effective. Additional recommendations covered a wide range of issues, including suggestions to adjust permitting rules to facilitate water re-use initiatives; ban automatic sprinkler systems; expedite reservoir permitting processes; eliminate declining rate structures; and

17

avoid using words like `restriction' or `ban' in favor of terms such as `hours of permission' or `watering schedule.'
In consideration of insights from water utility managers and other stakeholders, there are many lessons to be learned from the apparent successes and failures of demand and supply management actions initiated during this drought. The following list highlights some of these lessons:
Successful reservoir management by the COE provided high lake elevations prior to the onset of this drought, thereby maintaining secure drinking water supplies for the Atlanta region, which would have otherwise been threatened.
The numerous community and multi-jurisdictional reservoir projects completed in the last 20 years have helped many communities avoid a water supply crisis during this drought.
Mandated water use restrictions were highly effective in increasing public awareness and shaving peak demands. However, it is difficult (if not impossible) to determine the quantitative impact of water restrictions on reducing demand using existing data collection and reporting systems.
A clear set of standardized triggers for implementing water restrictions would improve communication problems among and between stakeholders.
Drought contingency plans required by EPD and local emergency water plans helped facilitate implementation of water use restrictions, but many of these plans are currently outdated and/or ineffective. EPD's recent requirement to evaluate the effectiveness of these plans every five years should help alleviate this problem.

DROUGHT IMPACTS
Despite the numerous drought management actions implemented at local, state and national levels, the 19982000 drought has significantly impacted many of those who depend upon Georgia's water resources. Drought impacts can be classified as direct or indirect. For example, a direct impact of drought is reduced crop yield. Indirect impacts can include a farmer's reduced income, increased prices for the consumer who would buy the farmer's produce and economic repercussions to the entire rural community that depends on local farmers to buy their goods and services.
Impacts can be further classified as environmental, economic or social. This section describes the environmental, economic and social impacts of the 19982000 drought, providing evidence of all four stages of drought described earlier in this report.
Environmental
The most obvious environmental impacts of the current drought in Georgia are hydrological effects such as lower water levels in reservoirs, lakes and ponds; reduced flow in rivers, streams and springs; increased groundwater depletion and reduced groundwater recharge. Water quality is also negatively affected by increased temperature, salt concentrations in streams near the coast, swings in pH and lower dissolved oxygen. Furthermore, lower flows reduce the abilities of rivers, lakes and streams to assimilate treated wastewater. In addition, dust and other small particles that are normally stripped out of the air by rain have negatively impacted air quality across the state.
The rapid rate of growth and development in Georgia has stretched the ability of some of the state's water resources to support multiple uses such as drinking water supply, agricultural irrigation, industrial and commercial uses, navigation and recreation. These human needs sometimes compete with the needs of fish,

wildlife and plant populations. Historically, wildlife populations have proven to be resilient and have adapted and recovered from natural droughts for many thousands of years. However, the increased demand on water resources has increased the vulnerability of some fish, wildlife and plant populations. A representative from DNR's Wildlife Resources Division described the threat of the 2000 drought in simple terms: "Less water; less fish. No water; no fish."
Because of this interaction between natural drought and increasing water demands, it is difficult to quantify this drought's direct impact on plant and wildlife populations. It is clear, however, that many plant and animal species are stressed. According to the Georgia Forestry Commission, the number of forest fires in 2000 has increased by 34 percent and the number of acres burned has doubled over the previous five-year average. In addition, pine beetle outbreaks, oak trees suffering from a fungus activated by stress and widespread tree root damage, especially in newly developed communities, can all be attributed to the prolonged drought.
The summer's shrimp catch is down as much as 20 percent because shrimp are avoiding coastal waters where salinity is 10 percent higher than normal due to less fresh water flowing into the estuaries. As a result, the shrimp are staying in tidal pools and coastal creeks where fisherman can't get to them. Being less vulnerable to fisherman may appear to be a benefit to shrimp populations; but, in fact, their numbers are declining due to reduced habitat. Threatened or endangered mussel populations in tributaries of the Flint River are also feeling the effects of this drought because of increased water withdrawals from streams and aquifers in the Flint River Basin. This drought has demonstrated the complexity and difficulty of managing water systems to meet both human and wildlife needs.

18

Economic
Agricultural In July, U.S. Department of Agriculture Secretary Dan Glickman declared all of Georgia's 159 counties disaster areas due to drought. This declaration was based upon damage assessment reports submitted from farmers across the state. The designation triggered a low-interest federal loan program to help farmers stay in business for another season. In a July report by the Center for Agribusiness and Economic Development at the University of Georgia, agricultural losses in Georgia were estimated at $739 million--with $689 million attributed to crop losses, and $50 million to additional costs for increased irrigation. During a drought assessment meeting in August, the University of Georgia Cooperative Extension Service estimated crop losses up to $885 million. The Georgia Farm Bureau warned that losses might be significantly higher as farmers buy hay to feed livestock through the winter, and insufficient rains during the spring season may threaten next summer's crops.
The Center for Agribusiness and Economic Development also estimates that every $1 lost in agricultural production can result in $3 lost to a local economy dependent on agriculture. Using these estimates, potential losses due to the economic chain reaction may run into the billions of dollars (McKissick et al, 2000). It is important to note that these loss estimates are as of July 1, 2000, and in most areas of the state, drought conditions persisted throughout the summer and fall.
One of the reasons this drought has been so costly to the agricultural community is that it was already in full force before summer crop planting began. As a result, many acres of crops that would have been planted in a normal year were not; and/or many that were planted have been abandoned due to limited yield potential (McKissick). Looking toward the summer of 2001, it is obvious why farmers are very concerned about the possibility of insufficient rains during the 2000 winter and 2001 spring.

Figure 6 (right) provides estimates of crop losses due to the 2000 drought for different regions of the state. These values are provided by the Center for Agribusiness and Economic Development and derived by comparing this year's crop production to a normal year's production and adding in drought-related costs such as irrigation.
Dr. Jim Hook, a professor of crop and soil sciences at the University of Georgia's College of Agricultural and Environmental Sciences, provides insight into the irrigation practices of Georgia's agricultural community. For most farmers, 2000 is the third consecutive year of drought. Since there is virtually no water in farm ponds and no feed in pastures, farmers must rely heavily on irrigation to get them through, especially with the continued lack of rain during seed germination and critical growing seasons. Many farmers began irrigating their crops much earlier than usual, and continued irrigating throughout the summer to protect their investments. During a statewide drought-planning meeting in September, Georgia Department of Agriculture Commissioner Tommy Irvin stated that in his 30 years with the Department, he has never known farmers to start irrigating so early in the season.
Most of Georgia's crops would not have survived the summer's dry months without irrigation, but the relief comes at a cost. Irrigation systems that are underdesigned and under-capacity are beginning to show their limitations; and higher fuel prices--though not related to the drought--added to farmers' expenses during a period of decreased productivity.
One farmer in Early county reports that even irrigation didn't save his crops. He irrigated approximately half of his 1100 acres until he ran out of water on July 5th. Without water for irrigation, he was unable to provide the one and a half inches of water for peanuts, and two and a half inches of water for cotton needed each week during a critical time in the growing season. Despite investing thousands of dollars in irrigation equipment, and spending approximately half of his income on irrigation costs this year alone, his cotton

Figure 6. Estimated Crop Losses by County Due to 2000 Drought
Source: UGA College of Agricultural and Environmental Science
Crop Loss Value More than $10,000,000 $510,000,000 $15,000,000 Less than $1,000,000

19

production was about one-fourth what it would have been in a normal year. Not surprisingly, crops planted on fields that were not irrigated were a total loss. This farmer said that without his second job, he is not sure how he would get by. He predicts that if sufficient rain doesn't fall this winter and spring, he will not be able to plant any crops and his farm will be totally devastated. Even considering his personal losses, this farmer seemed more concerned about the potential impact of this drought on his rural community than on his own farming income.
Commercial Several commercial enterprises such as car washes, painters and pressure washers have also been impacted negatively by the 1998-2000 drought. Some communities with critically low water supplies extended their watering restrictions to include commercial water use as well as residential use. According to an employee at the City of Griffin Water Department, their office was flooded with calls from frustrated pressure washers and painters once the total ban was enforced.
One Griffin resident, whose 2-employee painting and pressure washing business provides the sole source of income for himself and his family, claimed he was doing all right until August when the total ban was enforced. After that, "the calls just stopped." In order to maintain one of his best regular accounts, he decided to buy a water tank and fill it with water from his sister's private well, located 35 miles away.
Now that the total ban has been lifted, business is beginning to pick up again, but his income has taken a big hit. Not only did he have to cover the expense of buying a storage tank, but also his income for August was about 25 percent of a normal August income. In addition, he was not able to provide any work for his one employee during the month of August. When asked what he is doing to prepare for the possibility of continued drought, he responded that he gets together weekly to pray for rain with a group of local pastors.

Griffin's total water ban impacted commercial car washes too. An owner of a 24-hour car wash said this was the first time he has been "shut down" since he opened his business in 1979. Restrictions under the total ban limited operation of car washes to 12 hours a day. According to the owner, the restricted hours caused revenues to decrease by 35 to 40 percent for the month. Instead of having to face potential revenue shortfalls in the future due to water restrictions, he invested several thousand dollars in drilling three new wells.
Industrial Reduced water supplies have impaired navigability of rivers and curtailed hydropower production. Recreation, tourism and fishing industries have been negatively impacted by low lake elevations; reduced stream flows and decreased boater and angler access to ramps and docks.
In addition, water suppliers across the state are facing increased costs associated with drilling new wells and establishing interconnections; all while revenues are decreasing because of water restrictions and other conservation measures implemented to maintain critical water supplies.
Although state and local governments try to avoid impacting industries through mandatory water-use reductions, several manufacturers across the state have voluntarily taken the lead in reducing their water usage.
After reaching critical water supply levels, the City of Griffin asked their major industries to make voluntary reductions in water use and provide documentation of their conservation measures and results. One Griffin manufacturer with 620 employees took aggressive action and reduced its water use by 47 percent from 1999 to 2000 by conducting an internal water audit, staggering shifts, eliminating the use of an outdoor watering system, altering manufacturing processes and initiating a plant awareness program to encourage personal conservation of water usage. In addition, the company drilled two private wells to use `just in case' the water situation in Griffin became more critical and

the city had to restrict their water use further. Though the plant operator admits it was a large investment, he also claims it will result in cost-savings over the long run.
Businesses in Georgia's `green industry'--which includes nurseries and landscapers--have also experienced losses this summer as a result of the drought. According to the Metropolitan Atlanta Landscape and Turf Association (MALTA), they were inundated with calls from concerned landscapers worried about the decline in new and repeat jobs this summer. One landscape firm, serving Cobb and Cherokee counties, reports that they are barely staying afloat. The firm's two owners have withheld their own paychecks for four months so they wouldn't have to lay off any of their 33 employees. They are also late on payments to their supplier. According to one of the owners, their biggest concerns are builders and homeowners who are hesitant to invest in new or improved landscaping because of water restrictions. The owner reported that this summer's monthly income has been less than onequarter of a normal summer's income.
Social
Social impacts of drought include threats to public health and safety, reduced drinking water supply, increased conflicts for shared water resources, physical stress and anxiety and reduced quality of life due to loss of aesthetic values, reduction or modification of recreational activities and inconveniences. Fortunately, the drought of 19982000 has not affected the health and safety of Georgians significantly, though many other types of social impacts have been experienced throughout the state.
The most common social impact of this drought has been on residential lawns and landscaping as a result of mandatory watering restrictions. Most people will agree, however, that the general inconvenience and

20

possible loss of aesthetic values to homeowners is minor when compared to some of the other real and potential impacts described in this report. This section focuses on impacts to municipal and private drinking water supplies.
Municipal Systems In July 2000, a multi-agency task force assembled to address the immediate needs--particularly of communities experiencing significant water shortages--resulting from the ongoing drought in Georgia. The Task Force was comprised of representatives from several government agencies and professional associations in Georgia, including: EPD, GA Department of Community Affairs, GA Environmental Facilities Authority, GA Water & Pollution Control Association, University of Georgia Carl Vinson Institute of Governmental Affairs, GA Municipal Association, GA Emergency Management Agency, GA Department of Human Resources, Association County Commissioners of GA, and GA Rural Water Association. One of the first tasks of this group was to coordinate a comprehensive survey to identify communities that were experiencing, or were soon to experience, hardships related to the drought.
According to a report by the Multi-Agency Task Force, surveys were sent in August to city, county, and authority water contacts throughout the state. More than 320 surveys were received from the initial effort. From the original response, 64 communities indicated some problems; and 23 cities and 5 counties reported their public water supply as critically low.
Communities with serious water shortages were deemed `Critical,' based on a self-reported drinking water supply of one month or less. Communities with potential long-term supply problems were termed `Watch' because of a self-reported drinking water supply of more than one month, but verging on critical levels. Table 3 (right) identifies communities on each list, and Figure 7 (next page) shows where critical and watch communities were located across the state, as of August 28, 2000.

Table 3. List of Critical and Watch Communities, August 2000
Source: Multi-Agency Drought Task Force Surveys

Critical
Canton Carrollton Cornelia Crawford Dublin Eatonton Forsyth Griffin Helen Holly Springs Jasper Lavonia Macon Monticello Social Circle Statham Summerville Temple Thomaston Union Point Villa Rica Waleska Winder Carroll County Hall County (N) Heard County Lincoln County Spalding County

(G) Groundwater (S) Surface Water S S S S S/G S S S S/G S S/G S S S/G S S S S S S S S S S S S S/G S

21

Watch
Barnesville Berlin Blairsville Bowden Buchanan Byron Calhoun Cedartown Clayton Cordele Covington Cuthbert Dalton Utilities Donalsonville East Dublin Etowah WA Fayetteville Gainesville Girard Grantville Hogansville Homeland Madison Manchester Maysville Menlo Monroe Newton Pelham Roswell Senoia Cherokee County Coweta County Franklin County Haralson County Marion County Newton County Rockdale County White County

(G) Groundwater (S) Surface Water S G S/G S S G S/G G S G S G S G G S S/G S G S S G S/G S S G S S G S S S S G S G S S S

Figure 7. Critical/Watch Municipal Water Supplies, August 2000
Source: Prepared by EPD using data from the Multi-Agency Drought Task Force
Critical water supply cities Watch water supply cities Critical water supply counties Watch water supply counties

According to water officials from the City of Macon-- the most heavily populated community on the critical list--their problems are the result of bad timing and bad luck. Macon has been in the process of making infrastructure improvements since 1994 when their old water treatment plant flooded terribly because of Tropical Storm Alberto. The city built a new water plant beyond flood-prone areas and a new off-stream reservoir. Their new reservoir could not be filled until work was finished on a new pump station on the Ocmulgee River, and unfortunately, the drought hit when the reservoir was only about half full. The city's old plant is still in operation, but is prone to frequent breakdowns.
To complicate matters further, new intakes designed to pump water directly from the Ocmulgee River to the treatment plant became useless when the bottom of the river essentially shifted because of a natural phenomenon unrelated to the drought. The combination of a new reservoir that was never filled, consistently low river flows due to lack of rainfall, inoperable intakes and increased demand due to hot, dry conditions resulted in a critical water supply situation for Macon's residents. On October 4th, Macon received an emergency permit from the COE to install a temporary diversion structure on the river to allow direct withdrawals. Although the city has been able to continue operating at normal levels despite its numerous problems, officials are concerned about the lack of protection if the drought continues.
As of November, the City of Carrollton's public water supply was also in critical condition. According to one of the city's consulting engineers, the situation was "as bad as it can get-- but getting worse every day." This was despite a total water ban and spending approximately $70,000 for a temporary transfer to pump supplemental water out of an adjacent basin. The temporary transfer was authorized by EPD, and although it supplemented raw water supplies, it did not solve the city's problems. Carroll County also drilled a new well to supply water to Carrollton, and Douglas

County has entered into an agreement to sell water to the city. But the rain some areas received during the late summer completely missed Carrollton, and the city was just barely getting by despite having taken extraordinary measures.
At an October 16th meeting, the Mayor and City Council declared a state of emergency for the Carrollton public water system due to the severe drought conditions and critical water supply levels. By the end of October, Carrollton's water reserves were exhausted to the point that they restricted water use for commercial enterprises, effective November 2, 2000. City officials warned that if significant rain does not fall in the near future, additional restrictions will be imposed--which may impact heavy water-using industries, such as a large poultry processing operation that uses 1.1 million gallons of water a day. One Carrollton resident expressed his frustration, pointing out that the proposed West Georgia Regional Reservoir Project would have provided the water Carrollton needed to carry its residents through this drought.
Parrott, Georgia is a rural community in Terrell County with a population of about 460 that has also experienced significant problems. The community has a deep well turbine pump system that is lubricated with food-grade oil, which is a fairly common system in southwest Georgia. As the aquifer level dropped, the oil layer over the pump also dropped until the oil was sucked into the pump and discharged into the distribution lines. Approximately 90 gallons of oil was pumped from the well. There is very little that can be done to remedy this situation short of flushing the system with plenty of water, which is not readily available. The first residents to be impacted were those closest to the pump.
One of the affected customers was a family of three, living in Parrott. According to the woman of the house, there was no warning. As soon as she turned on her faucet, she noticed that the water had a funny smell and yellowish color. The oil entered all the home's plumbing lines and damaged her hot water heater

22

and appliances. For three days, they had no water at all while the city worked to repair and replace the old turbine pump. Then she was instructed to open all the faucets in her home and keep the water running continuously for 24 hours. The clean-up process was costly and time-consuming as well. To get by, they bought bottled water since theirs was not suitable to drink for almost two weeks, and drove to her mother's house 25 miles away to take showers.
Private Systems Determining the impact of this drought on privately owned systems is much more difficult than assessing impacts on municipal systems, primarily because public systems have tracking and reporting requirements but most private systems do not. There are, however, numerous reports indicating that a significant number of private (residential) and privately-owned public water system (mobile home parks and subdivisions) wells have run dry and/or had to have pumps lowered as a direct result of the ongoing drought in Georgia.
It is not possible to produce detailed information regarding the exact number of private systems impacted, since some owners of private wells or water systems do not report their problems. However, some information has been collected through a cooperative effort by EPD and several district health offices across the state.
Of only 40 counties reporting data by the end of October 2000, over 1600 private wells had run dry for periods ranging from days to months during 2000. The real impact is probably much greater, however, since data is not yet available for the remaining 119 counties in Georgia. Figure 8 (right) illustrates the number of reported dry private wells in several counties and shows counties with missing data. This illustration supports the need for improved tracking and reporting of private water systems in Georgia.

In Dougherty County, an 85-year old widow whose private well ran dry was without water for almost two months this summer. The problems started when she began to experience water pressure problems. The well repairman explained that the well was probably running dry due to the drought. Since the woman did not have money to drill a new well or lower her pump, she started cutting back on water use to stretch the limited supply for as long as possible. But the well ran dry quickly despite her conserving measures. Although she qualified for emergency assistance and applied for funding to drill a new well, delays with the application process left her without water for an extended period. In the meantime, her daughter took her laundry to her home to wash; and her son hauled water in barrels and in large jugs for drinking, cooking, washing and flushing toilets.
Another Dougherty County resident living in Albany had her private well run dry and also applied for emergency funding to drill a new well. Unfortunately, she did not qualify for assistance because, according to her, "as a single mother earning $25,000 a year, I make too much money." This offered little comfort, however, while she was without water for close to a week and had to find a way to cover the costs of re-drilling her well and installing a new pump. She said it took some time to find a well contractor who would accept payment in installments.
Despite the new well and pump, she still has low water pressure, and attributes this to the fact that she could only afford to drill the well 20 feet deeper--still about 40 feet short of most private well depths in the area. Needless to say, she is not very confident about next summer if adequate rain doesn't fall in the coming months. As a result, she has changed her water use habits in order to conserve water so that it will hopefully be available for herself and her son during dry periods in the future.

Figure 8. Number of Private Wells Running Dry for Some Counties in Georgia, October 2000
Source: Prepared by EPD using data from district health offices
131210 91130 4190 140 0 or no data

23

VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT
This section begins by describing why different regions of the state are vulnerable to drought, from both a natural (hydro-geologic) and human (supply management) perspective. Factors contributing to the vulnerabilities of critical/watch communities, particularly as it relates to water supply, will be identified and the role of growth, development and conflict over water resources will be addressed.

North of Fall Line
The State of Georgia can be divided many different ways, but for the purposes of this discussion, four distinct regions will be used to describe drought vulnerabilities of different parts of the state. The Fall Line is a physiographic boundary--represented by a change in elevation and hydro-geologic characteristics--between Georgia's Piedmont and Coastal Plain. The area north of the Fall Line will be divided horizontally into the Mountains and Piedmont Regions. The area south of the Fall Line will be divided vertically into the Atlantic Coastal Plain in the southeast region of the state, and the Gulf Coastal Plain in the southwest.
Mountains Region The Mountains region lies in the northern quarter of the state and includes the physiographic provinces of the Blue Ridge, Ridge and Valley and Appalachian Plateau. This region is characterized by forest-covered mountains and narrow valleys dominated by farms and pastures. Precipitation is relatively consistent month to month, but can vary greatly by location.
Groundwater is found in cracks and fissures of massive bodies of crystalline rock, but these fractured rock aquifers are difficult to access and have a relatively low capacity to store water. Although groundwater can serve as a source for smaller communities and areas not experiencing rapid growth, reservoir storage will be necessary to meet their long-term water needs and protect water supplies during drought.
Small headwater creek tributaries of several river basins in the region, including the Tennessee, Savannah, Coosa and Chattahoochee, supply surface water. Since this region is located toward the upper end of these river basins, streams have smaller average flows and do not allow water to accumulate in storage basins as quickly as regions further downstream, where flows are higher. The relatively small surface and groundwater storage capacity in this region is compounded by the lack of interconnections between communities due to the isolated nature of many cities in this region.
24

Piedmont Region The Piedmont region is a plateau extending from the foothills of the Appalachian Mountains to the Coastal Plain. Precipitation varies throughout region, but is greatest in the north, with an annual average of almost 50 inches per year. The Piedmont region comprises nearly one-third of the total land area of the state. This region has the same fractured rock geology as the Mountains region, with relatively unreliable and unproductive groundwater aquifers.
River basins in the region include the Tallapoosa, Chattahoochee, Flint, Ocmulgee, Oconee, Ogeechee and Savannah. Like the Mountains region, this region lies at the northern end of most of its river basins, so there is less water available for withdrawal and use than in areas further downstream. The same vulnerability exists with respect to reservoir storage as well-- since the region lies at the upper end of river basins where flows are relatively low, it takes a long time to collect and accumulate water for storage.
Additional vulnerability includes major population centers--such as the metro Atlanta region--located toward the upper end of the Piedmont, where streams have typically low flows. Suburban sprawl also means that potentially productive well sites will not be utilized because of encroaching development. In addition, developed areas also pose increased risks for ground and surface water pollution, threatening the quality of water supplies in the region. The impact of population growth and development on drought vulnerability will be addressed more thoroughly at the end of this section.
Fortunately, this region has the benefit of several large federal reservoirs, which has greatly reduced vulnerability during this drought and previous droughts. Even these large supplies have limits, however, as previous sections of this report have described. According to the ARC, approximately 445 million gallons of water are used during an average day in the Atlanta region. Lakes Lanier and Allatoona provide metro Atlanta residents

with approximately 70 percent of their drinking water. Some predictions show that at their current rate of use, the Chattahoochee River and Lake Lanier will not be able to support new growth after 2030.
South of Fall Line
The area south of the Fall Line covers about three-fifths of the total land area in the state with terrain ranging from slightly rolling to level. Low-lying coastal areas are marshy with slow-moving streams bordered by wide, swampy, dense woodland. Precipitation is highest along the coast and gradually decreases to the north with an annual average of 45 inches. Under normal conditions, surface water is generally more abundant here than north of the Fall Line since stream flows are greater in southern regions of the state's river basins.
The entire region is underlain by porous sedimentary rock, sand or gravel, which favors the development of groundwater supplies in several large aquifers. The most prolific source of groundwater in Georgia, the Floridan Aquifer, underlies roughly 40 percent of the state in the coastal plain regions. It provides approximately half of the groundwater used in Georgia and is pumped heavily to provide water for industry and agriculture, and drinking water to citizens.
Because of the nature of the aquifers in this area, drilling almost anywhere can yield usable amounts of water, making it relatively inexpensive to drill wells. The combination of abundant and inexpensive groundwater supplies with historically higher drought tolerance than surface water (at least for short-term rainfall deficits) has resulted in increased use and corresponding concern about whether water is being removed from aquifers faster than it is being recharged.
Declining groundwater levels throughout southern regions of the state support this concern. A prolonged period of below normal rainfall, as Georgia is currently experiencing, can cause a gradual decline in water levels. When this gradual decline (due to natural causes) is compounded with increased pumping, water levels

are drawn down--forming a cone-shaped depression on the water surface. This `cone of depression' is maintained as long as the well is pumping but is usually localized and does not affect other wells. However, when several high-capacity wells are pumping in the same vicinity, their cones of depression may overlap and cause a general lowering of the water table in an entire area, sometimes spreading for miles. Cones of depression have had different repercussions for the two regions south of the Fall Line, but in both cases, they have increased vulnerability to drought.
Atlantic Coastal Plain Region River basins in the region include the Ocmulgee, Oconee, Altamaha, Ogeechee, Savannah, St. Mary's and Satilla. Stream flow in the lower regions of these river basins is generally plentiful, and the highly productive Floridan Aquifer supplies groundwater. Traditionally, this region's water supply has been viewed as highly stable. Unfortunately, there are vulnerabilities, leading many to speculate that the region's water supply is not as stable as previously thought.
The Upper Floridan Aquifer underlying southeastern Georgia is relatively deep--ranging up to about 600 feet. Rather than discharging to streams (as in southwest Georgia), water from the Upper Floridan Aquifer in this region naturally discharges along the bottom of the Atlantic Ocean and estuaries. Heavy pumping in coastal areas for municipal and industrial purposes over several decades has created large cones of depression. These in turn reduce the water pressure in the Upper Floridan Aquifer, which increases the potential of saltwater from the ocean or from a lower aquifer entering the fresh water supply. Though the saltwater encroachment problem is not caused in any way by the current drought, the resulting concerns about long-term viability of water supplies are even more alarming during drought conditions.

Gulf Coastal Plain Region River basins in the southwest region of the state include the Chattahoochee, Flint, Ochlockonee and Suwanee. Although under normal conditions, stream flow in the lower regions of these river basins should be plentiful, it has been severely reduced due to lack of rainfall, increased withdrawals for agricultural irrigation in the region and increased demand upstream. As in the southeast, groundwater sources in this region have been very productive, but are currently threatened by increased pumping and the possibility of overdrawing aquifers.
In southwest Georgia, the Upper Floridan Aquifer, which serves as an important resource for the agricultural community, is relatively shallow (typically less than 50 feet to its top). The intensive use of water during summer months for agricultural irrigation contributes to the region's vulnerability. The current drought has caused farm ponds to dry up and limited other surface water sources due to increased withdrawals and evaporation during the hot dry summer months. Because surface water sources have been unreliable, many farmers in the region have drilled wells for irrigation. Almost one-third of the water withdrawal permits in the state (over 20,000 permits) are issued for the 15-county area in the agricultural belt of the Lower Flint River Basin.
Increased pumping for agricultural irrigation from 1998 through 2000 has lowered the water table over large areas. The declining water table poses a serious threat to public and private water systems because the water level may drop to the point that shallower wells in the area go dry. This is even more likely to occur during a prolonged drought. As a result, those without the capacity to develop a large central public system or drill deep individual wells are at great risk of losing their water supply. The net result is that both farmers and residents with private wells are highly vulnerable to drought.
The Upper Floridan Aquifer is also a key resource being evaluated as part of the ACT-ACF water-use issues. Water from this aquifer is important not only as a drinking-water source and to support agricultural irrigation, but also for its vital function of discharging water into the Flint River

25

Table 4. 1988 List of Critical Communities
Source: EPD 1988 Midsummer Drought Report

1988 Critical City/County

(G) Groundwater (S) Surface Water

Americus

G

Barnesville

S

Blairsville

S

Carlton

G

Carnesville

G

Cedartown

G

Chatsworth

S

Clayton

S

Cloudland

G

Dalton

S

Dawsonville

G

Ellijay-Gilmer Co. S

Etowah WSA

S

Flovilla

G

Forsyth

S

Hamilton

S

Helen

G

Jackson

S

Jasper

S

Kingston

G

LaFayette

S

Lula

G

Monticello

S

Moreland

G

Morganton

G

Roberta

G

Sky Valley

G

Statham

G

Talbotton

G

Tarrytown

G

Whitesburg

G

Winder

S

Haralson County S

Jones County

G

Talbot County

G

Towns County

G

Union County

G

Walker County

S

(W)2000 Watch (C) 2000 Critical
W W
W W W
W C C C
C
C
C W

and its tributaries, thus maintaining base flows during drier seasons and droughts. Current studies suggest that over-withdrawing groundwater supplies may dry up the tributaries of the Lower Flint River Basin. This problem is unique to this region, and the Lower Flint River Drought Protection Act presents a solution by compensating farmers for not irrigating their fields during droughts to reduce the entire region's vulnerability.
Critical/Watch Communities
Many of the communities on the critical and watch lists share common traits: the majority of communities are located north of the Fall Line toward the upper end of river basins, where stream flows are low and groundwater is unavailable; many are near large population centers with growing water demands; most do not have access to large federal or regional reservoirs; and several are isolated communities where interconnections are not feasible or cost-effective.
If critical private systems were also included, it would be reasonable to assume that many would be located in the southwest quadrant of the state and share similar attributes, such as proximity to agricultural irrigation wells. Problems would also be expected for private groundwater systems in the Mountains and Piedmont regions of the state. Refer to figures 7 and 8 for an illustration of where critical and threatened municipal and private water systems are located throughout the state.
It is very important to note that thirteen of the communities on the August 2000 critical/watch list were also on the 1988 critical water supply list provided in Georgia EPD's 1988 Drought Report. This indicates that lack of preparedness, rather than increased demand, may be the biggest factor contributing to vulnerability for these communities. It appears that even without population growth, several of these communities still would not have sufficient supplies, storage or infrastructure to handle their water needs during drought. This contention makes it even more important to
26

understand and address the supply limitations of these communities.
In contrast, there are twenty-five communities that were on the 1988 critical list, that are not on the 2000 critical list. Many of these communities can attribute their stable water supply to various pro-active supply management actions, such as building reservoirs, maximizing use of available ground and surface water sources and interconnecting with other water systems.
Table 4 (left) provides a list of communities that were on the 1988 `Critical Communities' list. Communities that also appear on the 2000 critical or watch list are identified. Please note that although a case-by-case comparison is somewhat problematic because of different criteria used to make the `critical' designation, the bottom line is that many of the communities that were not prepared for the 1988 drought were also unprepared for the 2000 drought.
Tables 5 and 6 (right) categorize the problems of those communities listed as `Critical' or `Watch', as of August 28, 2000. Water supply limitations were selfreported by water systems responding to the MultiAgency Drought Response Task Force surveys, and then categorized in terms of the most prevalent problem(s), though several problems may exist for a given community. Where there was no clear single cause, more than one category was selected. Critical and Watch communities with problems not related to water supply limitations--such as vulnerability to spills, administrative limitations, survey concerns or limited finished water storage--were excluded.
Eighteen of twenty-eight Critical communities attribute their critical water supply to a lack of reservoirs, or insufficient reservoir storage. Nine Critical communities report that insufficient infrastructure or interconnections are to blame, and two report wells running dry. Of Watch communities, six report reservoir storage as their primary supply limitation, and eight indicate that insufficient infrastructure and/or a lack of interconnections with other water systems is the source of their water supply shortfall. Four Watch communities report wells running dry. These tables clearly show the impact of inadequate

Table 5. Water Supply Limitations of CRITICAL Communities
Source: Multi-Agency Drought Task Force Surveys

Water System

Reservoir Storage (N) None (I) Insufficient

Insufficient Infrastructure/ Interconnects

cities

Canton

qN

q

Carrollton

qI

Cornelia

qI

q

Dublin

qN

Eatonton

qN

Forsyth

qI

Griffin

qI

Holly Springs

q

Jasper

qN

Macon

q

Monticello

qI

Social Circle

qN

q

Statham

qI

Summerville q N

Temple

qI

Thomaston

qI

Villa Rica

qI

Waleska

q

counties

Carroll County q I

q

Hall County

q

Heard County q I

Lincoln County

q

Spalding County q N

Totals

18

9

Dry Wells
q q
2

Table 6. Water Supply Limitations of WATCH Communities
Source: Multi-Agency Drought Task Force Surveys

Water System

Reservoir Storage (N) None (I) Insufficient

Insufficient Infrastructure/ Interconnects

cities

Barnesville

qI

Cedartown

q

Donalsonville

East Dublin

Etowah WA

q

Fayetteville

qI

Girard

Hogansville

qI

Manchester

qI

Roswell

q

Senoia

q

counties

Cherokee County

q

Coweta County

q

Franklin County

q

Haralson County q N

Rockdale County

q

White County q N

Totals

6

8

Dry Wells
q q q q
4

27

Figure 9. Estimated Change in Population and Water Use in Regions of Georgia, 19901999
Source: Prepared by EPD using data from USGS and USCB
+18.35% +18.45%

+30.33% +13.41%

+16.63% +13.14%

+3.83% +10.64%

+10.03% -0.69%

Metro Atlanta Area Mountains Piedmont Atlantic Coastal Plain Gulf Coastal Plain
+00.00%=Percent change in population +00.00%=Percent change in water use

supply management--particularly insufficient reservoir storage--on a community's ability to prepare for and withstand a prolonged drought.
In addition to supply limitations addressed above, there are other attributes relevant to the vulnerability assessment of critical and watch communities. For example, only 11 of 67 critical/watch communities have EPD-approved drought contingency plans. Although amended withdrawal rules now require completion and regular review of these plans, the majority of these communities may not have had to submit plans yet because they have not requested a new or modified permit, and/or because the 5-year plan review requirement is not due until 2001.
Population Growth and Water Use
U.S. Census Bureau (USCB) statistics rank the State of Georgia sixth in the nation in terms of highest rate of change in population from 1990 to 1999, with a 20.2 percent increase during that period. Within the state, it is noteworthy that four of the fifteen highest-growth counties are on the critical/watch water supply list, and twelve of fifteen are located in the northern third of the state.
The 20-county metropolitan Atlanta area is ranked second in the nation, behind only Los Angeles, in increased population during the last decade. Estimates show an increase of 900,000 residents to the metro Atlanta area during this time, representing a 30.3 percent increase and bringing the metro area population close to 4 million people. Projections from various sources estimate metro Atlanta's population will range from 4.5 to 6.4 million by 2020. The U.S. Census Bureau projects that the State of Georgia will become the 9th most populous state by the year 2025, with a total population approaching 10 million people.
Figure 9 (left) illustrates the estimated change in population and water use from 1990 to 1999 for four regions of the state, with an additional sub-region of

the Piedmont representing the 20-county metro Atlanta area. The illustration was developed by EPD using population data from the USCB and water use data from the USGS. As expected, population growth was highest in the metro Atlanta region, with a 30.3 percent increase. The second highest rate of growth was 18.4 percent in the mountains region.
This map shows a decrease of 0.7 percent in water use for the Atlantic coastal plain region of the state, thanks, in part, to the coastal groundwater management strategies described earlier in this report. The largest increase in water use was in the mountains region (18.5 percent), with metro Atlanta coming in second with an increase of 13.4 percent. Note that water use estimates include public supply, commercial and industrial use, but not agricultural use. Therefore, water use estimates for agricultural regions of the state may appear much lower than actual use.
Growth and corresponding development have been beneficial to the state in many ways, but have also contributed to concern and conflict over the state's limited water resources. The problem is simple; more people use more water. The state's water resources are finite and their continued ability to support human, plant and animal populations is dependent upon two things: rainfall (over which we have no control), and water use (over which we do have control).
This issue becomes more complex when the waters that run through one state (Georgia) also run into and through others (Alabama, Florida). As anyone involved in the tri-state water negotiations can attest, hydrologic boundaries rarely correspond with political boundaries. The interstate water disputes over the Alabama-CoosaTallapoosa (ACT) and Apalachicola-Chattahoochee-Flint (ACF) River Basins have been ongoing for more than ten years, and involve water sources that support 60 percent of Georgia's residents. Though the disputes over allocation of these water resources started well before the current drought began in 1998, competition for water in these basins escalates during drought, adding to the complexity of the negotiations.

28

REDUCING GEORGIA'S VULNERABILITY
According to the National Drought Mitigation Center, a concern for water resource planners is the relative rate of change between water demand and water supply: "If demand is increasing more rapidly than supply, the vulnerability and incidence of drought may increase in the future" (NDMC 1996). Water demand usually increases as a result of population growth, related development and increased per capita consumption. Water supply can increase because of improved efficiency in water treatment and distribution, alternative source technology and increased storage capacity. Supply and demand are clearly interrelated and the effective management of both will reduce Georgia's vulnerability.

Managing Water Supply
Surface Water Sources To assure a sustainable supply of surface water while protecting aquatic resources, Georgia must optimize the use and protection of these sources by involving stakeholders at federal, state and local levels. Comprehensive statewide river basin planning efforts and regional watershed assessments will help protect all of the river basins in Georgia. Interstate conflict over the allocation of water resources in the ACT-ACF river basins, when resolved, will be mutually beneficial. And, the network of stream flow monitoring and gaging stations needs to be maintained and expanded. At the federal level, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers should operate federal reservoirs as if drought is imminent, especially in the metro Atlanta region where close to 4 million people depend on Lakes Lanier and Allatoona for water supply and waste assimilation.

29

Figure 10. Critical/Watch Communities and Completed Reservoir Projects
Source: EPD Water Resources Branch
Area represented below
Completed local reservoirs Critical water supply Watch water supply

Figure 11. Critical/Watch Communities and Pending Reservoir Projects
Source: EPD Water Resources Branch
Proposed reservoirs with permits pending Critical water supply Watch water supply

But the most significant contribution to reducing drought vulnerability among surface water sources is the development of community and multi-jurisdictional reservoir projects in Georgia. The positive impact of reservoirs in reducing drought vulnerability is evident, and the negative repercussions of insufficient reservoir storage are hard to ignore.
Figures 10 and 11 (left) illustrate this point. Where local reservoir projects were completed, many surrounding communities have been able to maintain adequate water supplies despite the prolonged drought. On the other hand, many communities with critical or threatened water supplies are located near pending reservoirs sites. All twenty-four of the 2000 Critical and Watch communities that attributed their water supply limitations to a lack of sufficient reservoir storage would benefit from new or improved reservoirs in their communities, or expanded interconnections to neighboring communities with reservoirs.
The relative stability of drinking water supplies in the metro Atlanta area, the most densely populated area of the state, attests to the tremendous benefits of reservoir storage. Were it not for access to large federal reservoirs such as Lakes Lanier and Allatoona, more than 2.5 million Georgia residents who depend upon the lakes for drinking water would have had severe water shortages during this drought.
Although these large federal reservoirs are not on the same scale as community or multi-jurisdictional reservoir projects, neither are the relative population densities they support. New or increased reservoir storage would allow many of Georgia's communities, particularly those with critical or threatened water supplies, to prolong their water supplies during drought, which in turn offers improved protection and service to residents and more effective management of water resources.

30

Unfortunately, the current process of planning, obtaining required federal dredge and fill permits and constructing reservoir projects is arduous at best, and seemingly impossible at worst. Years of delays due to permitting processes and funding shortfalls have resulted in insufficient storage capacity for many communities in Georgia, despite major planning efforts.
Several of the communities on the critical/watch list can attest to these complications: eight communities have pending reservoir permits, and two have received permit approval, but their reservoirs are not yet constructed or on-line. Whether delayed by permitting or construction processes, all ten communities would not have had threatened water supplies if their proposed reservoir projects were completed in a timely manner. Table 7 (right) provides a small sample of reservoir project timelines to illustrate the process delays.
To date, the 1989 Georgia Water Supply Act authorizing funding for regional reservoirs has not resulted in the construction of any new reservoir projects, though the original legislation still exists to support future water supply projects. As a result, many communities have taken it upon themselves to move forward with independent and multi-jurisdictional reservoir projects without the benefit of funding support from the state.
Unfortunately, many more communities have limited capabilities to coordinate and fund their own reservoir projects. For many regions in the state, reservoir projects facilitated by the Georgia Water Supply Act and designed to meet water demand with minimum impact to the environment may be the most cost effective option for reducing drought vulnerability. The DNR budget does not include funds appropriated for this purpose, but new regional reservoir applicants can request funding directly from the General Assembly for projects meeting criteria set forth in the Water Supply Act.

Table 7. Sample of Reservoir Project Timetables
Source: EPD Water Resources Branch
Reservoir Project Local Governments Involved

Bear Creek Reservoir
Big Haynes Creek Reservoir
Horton Creek Reservoir Yahoola Creek Reservoir Yellow Creek Reservoir

Athens-Clarke County Barrow County Jackson County Oconee County
Gwinnett County Walton County Rockdale County Newton County City of Snellville
Fayette County
Lumpkin County City of Dahlonega
Cherokee County

Year Project Began 1991
1978
1987 1988 1986

Year Permit Issued 1995
1991
1992 1992 1994

Year Project Complete
Expected 2001

Total Years in Process
9 +

1999

21

1997

10

2000

12

1999

13

31

Table 8. Reservoir Projects in Georgia Pending COE Permits
Source: EPD Water Resources Branch

Reservoir

River Basin County

Glades Whooping Creek

Chattahoochee Hall Chattahoochee Carroll

Surface Area (acres) 600850 462

Pea Creek/ Bear Creek
Hickory Log Creek

Chattahoochee Fulton

Coosa

Cherokee

245/227 370

Lake McIntosh

Flint

Still Branch

Flint

Creek

Fayette

642

Pike

467

Spalding

Coweta

Tussahaw Creek Bear Creek Hard Labor Creek Nancy Town Creek Hogansville Creek West Georgia

Ocmulgee Ocmulgee Ocmulgee Chattahoochee Chattahoochee Tallapoosa

Butts Newton Walton Habersham Troup Haralson

1477 1242 1367 Unknown Unknown 3490

Potential Yield (mgd) 815 10-18
36/35
> 40
15 > 20
> 20 > 20 41 Unknown Unknown 2065

Critical/Watch Communities Impacted
White County
Carrolton Carroll County
None directly impacted
Canton Holly Springs Cherokee County
Fayetteville
Griffin Manchester Thomaston Barnesville Spalding County
Forsyth
Monticello
Statham
Cornelia
Hogansville
Carrollton Villa Rica Carroll County Haralson County

Table 8 (left) lists pending reservoir projects along with 2000 Critical and Watch communities that would directly benefit from completion of each project.
Groundwater Sources Several important studies are underway to better understand the capabilities and limits of Georgia's groundwater sources. For example, EPD is involved in studies in the southwest region of the state that will improve estimates of irrigation withdrawals from the aquifer; determine key hydrologic characteristics; expand monitoring networks and improve understanding of how protracted droughts, pumping and natural discharges can affect aquifers. Another series of studies, referred to as the Sound Science Initiative, is underway along Georgia's coastal area. These studies are designed to better define hydrologic characteristics, identify the extent of saltwater intrusion and evaluate alternative water sources.
Efforts to reduce drought vulnerability with respect to groundwater sources should also include proactive efforts to assist small communities and private well owners with critical water supplies. For example, grant and loan programs can provide funding to local governments for the development of centralized well water systems, or interconnections with other systems where possible. In addition, groundwater users can benefit from assistance with drilling new or deeper wells and exploring options for consolidation of community water supplies into regional well systems supported through the Georgia Water Supply Act.

32

Infrastructure/Interconnections In addition to optimizing the use and protection of Georgia's surface and groundwater sources, initiatives to improve the infrastructure and interconnections of water suppliers can significantly reduce regional drought vulnerability. For many water suppliers, system improvements--including leak reduction, enhanced efficiency and capacity of water treatment, storage and distribution, and increased interconnections with other water systems--are necessary to meet the growing demand and manage the available supply. In addition, new technologies to develop alternative water sources, improve treatment processes and facilitate water re-use and recycling will play an important role in better managing Georgia's water supply.
Although many of these initiatives and improvements can be expensive, the long-term cost-savings usually justify the initial investment. According to the Cobb-Marietta Water Authority, Georgia's water managers need to maximize their infrastructure investments by operating at capacity. If water suppliers continually increase supply without maximizing efficiency, money is wasted. Many water managers find themselves borrowing money to build a new treatment plant so they can sell more water. The growing customer base then requires managers to borrow again to increase capacity again, which adds new customers again--and so on. Just as retailers manage their inventory to have enough, but not too many, goods on their shelves for customers, so too should water utilities better manage their existing supply rather than stretching budgets to create excess capacity.

Managing Water Demand
Conservation There are two primary considerations supporting the importance of water conservation; first, Georgia's water resources have limits; and second, the recurrence of drought in Georgia is inevitable. In order to protect and preserve Georgia's water resources and reduce the state's vulnerability to future drought, the demand for water must be managed through conservation. It is important to note that water conservation measures do not simply translate into using less water, but in fact support a wide range of initiatives that allow Georgia's citizens to do more with less water. This presents a significant challenge, but also tremendous opportunity.
In many areas, conservation has been used as a means to increase economic development and accommodate growth, which generally results in increased demand. Eventually, growing demand will increase drought vulnerability. A cyclical pattern emerges.
To reduce this pattern in Georgia, water uses must be prioritized and conservation should not be used to accommodate growth or as a last resort during times of crisis, but should instead become an integral component of effective water resource management. This conservation must be achieved across sectors--from individual households to entire communities, from individual farmers, and from small commercial businesses to large industries and institutions.
According to USGS statistics presented during an August 2000 Clean Water Initiative task force meeting, the national average for per capita water consumption (for publicly supplied water used for residential, commercial and industrial, but not agricultural purposes) is 153 gallons of water per day. In Georgia, the average per capita water consumption is 168 gallons of water per day, 10 percent higher than the national average. ARC estimates project that by the year 2020, water demand for the Atlanta region will increase by approximately 50 percent from the current level.

Their forecasts also predict that approximately 10 percent of the water needed in 2020 will have to come from conservation due to limited water supplies and population growth projections.
In the metro Atlanta region, over half of the water used is for residential purposes. Clearly, conservation initiatives designed to reduce residential indoor and outdoor water use can have a major impact on reducing drought vulnerability.
Programs that require and facilitate installation of ultra-low flow toilets can conserve massive amounts of water. Combined with other water-conserving appliances such as high-efficiency clothes washers and dishwashers and low-flow showerheads and faucets, total household water use reductions as high as 38 percent have been reported (see pg. 35 describing water conservation success stories in Los Angeles, California).
Water demand can essentially double during the summer months--and 50 to 60 percent can be attributed to outdoor watering. Considering these statistics, initiatives to reduce residential outdoor use can have a tremendous impact on reducing total water demand, particularly in the metro Atlanta region. Many of these initiatives can result in winning solutions for stakeholders, including landscape professionals, homeowners, developers and water suppliers.
For example, local governments and regional development centers can work with landscape professionals and the Cooperative Extension Service to promote and facilitate Xeriscapes--water-conserving landscapes using a variety of native and drought-tolerant plants that save homeowners money on watering. Municipal, commercial and residential Xeriscapes are aesthetically pleasing, drought resistant and cost-effective, requiring approximately half the watering of other landscapes.

33

Watering schedules for non-essential residential use can also help manage demand by reducing peak water use during dry seasons, thereby allowing water suppliers to better serve their customers. Watering schedules, along with deliberate public education efforts, can reduce plant damage from over-watering. According to the WaterSmart campaign initiated by the CobbMarietta Water Authority, during the 1988 drought, more lawns were damaged from root rot caused by over watering than from lack of water due to drought conditions.
In addition to improving conservation of residential water use, there is room for much improvement with respect to agricultural water use. Under current rules, the state's agricultural water users are not required to report their water usage, and agriculture permits never expire. Studies are currently under way to improve agricultural water use data. Because of these limitations, it is difficult for EPD to manage this demand, although there is no doubt that crop irrigation contributes significantly to Georgia's total water use. Crop irrigation comprises over one-third of the water used in Georgia, and is a considerably larger portion during drought years. The combination of a lack of regulatory control, relatively inexpensive water, critical time constraints inherent in crop irrigation practices and the age of many irrigation systems all contribute to the potential for overuse. More efficient, water-conserving alternatives will benefit farmers while reducing drought vulnerability.
A 1998 report prepared cooperatively by EPD, University of Georgia, North Carolina State University and Clemson University reported that many agricultural irrigation systems have been in place for 20 years or more and are in need of upgrades and improvement. The report included several recommendations with potential for tax incentives or regulatory programs to encourage irrigation system upgrades to more efficient and conservation-oriented alternatives.

The five primary recommendations included: 1) Irrigation system audits to assess current conditions and determine the best system changes; 2) repair or installation of shutoffs for center pivot systems; 3) repair of water delivery systems on older traveling gun systems; 4) use of preferred irrigation scheduling techniques on orchard drip systems and 5) replacement of old sprinkler packages with new, more efficient sprinklers. These five recommendations alone which represent less than 15 percent of the total recommendations presented in the report--are estimated to save approximately 11,613 million gallons of water in an average year (Evans et al, 1998).
Pricing Strategies Pricing strategies can also be used to manage and control water demand. Although water rates are set and controlled at the local level, assistance from various professional, regional and state entities can help educate water utilities about a variety of water and sewer pricing strategies. Perhaps the most important lesson is that profit and conservation are compatible goals for water utilities.
For example, during dry summer months, inclining block rate structures and summer surcharges will promote conservation while maintaining profit margins. The ARC Water Supply Plan recommends water and wastewater rate structures and policies that equitably distribute costs, control peak demands and encourage conservation. The ARC also recommends that water utilities eliminate decreasing rate structures and develop information about potential cost savings for homeowners who conserve water.
Another important message is that pricing strategies to control water demand can be beneficial in the long run. The plant manager of a Griffin, Georgia manufacturer whose water use was reduced by almost 50 percent over the previous year admits that, although the company was glad to help conserve Griffin's critical water supply, their aggressive conservation measures were in fact precipitated by a rate increase from the Griffin

Water Department earlier in the year. The plant manager says that the price increase provided the nudge they needed to use their water more efficiently in order to save money. As a result, their operations have been streamlined significantly, and they were better prepared when water supplies reached critical levels. He estimates that cost savings resulting from conservation measures will far outweigh the water rate increase.
Re-use Recycling water helps to extend, conserve and protect valuable potable water resources by offsetting demand and increasing supply, thereby protecting water resources and reducing drought vulnerability. Since it is clear that increased growth and water demand cannot be supported indefinitely, new and existing technology needs to be developed for water re-use initiatives; and federal, state and local governments need to work together to facilitate these programs. Treated wastewater can be reclaimed for several purposes, including non-potable re-use and ultra-high treatment re-use (see pg. 36 describing water re-use success stories in Pinellas County, Florida).
With non-potable re-use programs, treated wastewater is sent directly to homes or businesses through dual distribution systems for non-potable uses such as lawn and landscape irrigation, flushing toilets, washing cars, and fire protection. Non-potable re-use increases the capacity of treatment plants because less wastewater is discharged to surface and groundwater sources.
Ultra-high treatment re-use programs treat wastewater to ultra-high standards that allow discharge into rivers, lakes and streams without compromising water quality. Though this process is generally more costly to develop and implement than non-potable re-use programs, it can effectively increase the water supply, which can be critical during drought conditions.

34

Education and Collaboration The National Drought Mitigation Center summarizes common perceptions about drought in a model called the `hydro-illogical cycle.' The cycle begins with drought, which leads to awareness, which leads to concern about drought, which leads to panic, which eventually ends in apathy after rain falls and the drought subsides. This model serves as an important reminder that education about drought--its impacts and ways to prepare for and mitigate the effects of drought--must be ongoing rather than just during a state of crisis.
Georgia's citizens have had plentiful water supplies in the past, and so water conservation has not been a high priority. But the current drought should help demonstrate that things are changing in Georgia, and so too should attitudes about water resources and conservation. This necessary shift in perceptions, values and behaviors must be addressed through concentrated educational efforts, targeted to various audiences.
For example, many of Georgia's citizens may view efforts to drill private wells as the solution to the inconvenience of municipal water restrictions. Though the state-mandated restrictions applied to private as well as public water systems, it is difficult to monitor and enforce private water use. As a result, many businesses have drilled their own wells as a drought-proofing effort, but this independence often discourages conservation, and in fact, often contributes to water shortages. Every water user must be educated that regardless of their water source--whether public or private, surface or groundwater--it must be shared among all of Georgia's water users.

Given the wide range of audiences--general public, mass media, public agencies, private enterprises, nonprofit organizations, homeowners, landscape professionals, school children, educators, farmers, water managers and elected officials--collaborative educational efforts will be the most effective approach. And once cooperative education efforts are underway, partnerships among various factions will develop. These relationships facilitate information sharing and help develop solutions to effectively manage Georgia's water demand. Many of these collaborative efforts are already underway and will benefit from further support and development.
Success Stories Georgians can take some comfort in the fact that they are not alone. Many other states in the U.S. and countries around the world have had to deal with drought and learn to better manage their water supplies to meet long-term demands. There are many lessons to be learned from other areas that have confronted similar problems and just two examples are provided below.
Recall that the national average for per capita water use is 153 gallons per day, and Georgia's water use is estimated at 168 gallons per day. Then consider that the per capita water use for Los Angeles, California is 142 gallons per day and for Pinellas County, Florida, use is estimated at 111 gallons per person per day. These two major metropolitan communities have demonstrated that water conservation is not only possible, but makes sense.
Los Angeles, CA Los Angeles, California is a large city with limited local water resources, and it sits in a desert climate. Concern about water supply meeting demand is engrained in this city's history and culture. Yet during a recent drought in the late 1980's, the city felt ill prepared and was forced to ration water. Concern about meeting record levels of demand due to population growth in the area resulted in a push for aggressive conservation

programs along with the development of local supplies through improved groundwater management and water recycling and re-use initiatives. Their efforts proved to be highly successful, as evidenced by the fact that the city's current water demand is at the same level it was almost 30 years ago, despite a 32 percent increase in population (amounting to about 1 million new residents) during that time.
Los Angeles has demonstrated that aggressive conservation programs can significantly ease the burden on supply and wastewater treatment. Two state laws helped facilitate conservation goals: one established best management practices (BMP's), retrofitting and pricing requirements for residential and commercial landscaping and the other established a statewide landscape ordinance with standards.
But the most significant contribution to Los Angeles' conservation success is the voluntary partnerships and coalitions formed to make necessary changes. A Memorandum of Understanding, which was eventually signed by 260 water systems and environmental groups, set schedules and criteria for implementing the BMP's identified in the umbrella legislation and provided mechanisms for evaluating conservation results.
In addition to extensive public education efforts, water pricing strategies that encourage conservation and an aggressive water recycling program that aims to re-use 40 percent of the city's wastewater by the year 2010; the city also offers a wide range of rebates and services to homeowners, small business and commercial/industrial enterprises, including: Free home water survey programs and
leak check appointments Free evaluation of landscaped areas and
irrigation technical assistance program Free faucet aerators and low-flow showerheads Ultra low-flow toilet voucher programs and
free toilet leak detection dye tablets $150 rebates for water efficient washing machines

35

Financial incentive programs for commercial/ industrial wastewater reduction (with awards up to $500,000 per project)
Financial incentive programs for commercial/ industrial conservation programs (with awards up to $254 for every acre-foot of water saved for up to 5 years). Los Angeles currently budgets $10 million annually
to support conservation programs. In the last decade, the city has spent approximately $100 million to encourage use of water efficient appliances through rebates and give-away programs.
In addition, the city fought great opposition, but eventually passed a controversial ordinance requiring installation of water-efficient appliances (including lowflow showerheads and ultra-low flow toilets) not only on new construction, but also prior to the sale of existing residential and non-residential property.
In the long run, city officials agree the investment has been worth it. Toilet retrofits alone have saved more than 9 billion gallons of water per year, undoubtedly part of the reason the city's water demand has remained constant despite continued growth and development.
Pinellas County, FL
Pinellas County, Florida which includes the cities of St. Petersburg and Tampa is the state's most densely populated county with a high rate of growth and development, and limited fresh water resources. Pinellas County also claims to have the lowest per capita water use of any county in the state, which it attributes to an aggressive and extensive water recycling/re-use program. Approximately 60 percent of the county's wastewater is re-used for residential and commercial lawn irrigation and other non-potable uses.
This reclaimed water is the final product of a multiple-stage advanced treatment program, which eliminates pathogens but retains nitrogen and phosphorous

elements that work as fertilizers to enhance ornamental plant and turf grass growth. Although the reclaimed water is not suitable for human consumption, it has proven to be ideal for lawn sprinkling. The City of St. Petersburg claims the program has been so successful that the demand for reclaimed water is currently higher than its supply. Pinellas County is investing $206 million for an additional 33 million gallons of reclaimed water per day to meet the growing demand.
The county also takes a pro-active approach to other methods of conservation--launching a comprehensive public education program; implementing water-conserving rate structures and distributing more than 200,000 plumbing retrofit kits to residents free of charge.
In addition, Pinellas County maintains a year round watering schedule for non-essential outdoor watering of both public and private systems which allows watering only one day per week; and requests voluntary reductions on reclaimed water use as well, limiting watering to three days per week.
Drought Planning and Response
In 1998, Congress passed the National Drought Policy Act, which stated that the nation would benefit from drought policy based on preparedness and mitigation to reduce the need for emergency relief. In its 2000 report, "Preparing for Drought in the 21st Century," The National Drought Policy Commission recommended a coordinated approach to drought planning--developed through partnerships among government and nongovernment entities, and encouraging proactive mitigation activities such as water conservation, reuse of wastewater, pricing strategies and back-up water supplies to reduce drought vulnerability. The Commission also encourages drought planning as an ongoing process that is one component of a more comprehensive water management strategy.

EPD supports these recommendations and, in partnership with DNR's Pollution Prevention Assistance Division (P2AD), initiated a comprehensive, multistakeholder drought planning effort this summer.
Though EPD agrees that preparedness is a much more effective drought management strategy than crisis management, the fact remains that several of Georgia's communities are in crisis, and this must be addressed. Several actions have already been taken to respond to the needs of communities near crisis--such as establishing the Multi-Agency Drought Task Force--but more can be done to assist communities with critical or threatened water supplies and reduce their vulnerability.
While the state must respond to the immediate needs and concerns of its citizens, comprehensive drought planning efforts will be ongoing. The state has engaged experts and stakeholders from within Georgia and has contracted with a team of drought experts from across the nation to guide and facilitate this process. The planning group will determine data collection and analysis needs and develop vulnerability profiles, drought mitigation and response measures.
The end result of this effort will be a drought plan that provides a statewide framework, regional approach and linkages with local drought plans. Equally, if not more important than the state drought plan itself will be the development of an effective drought planning process for Georgia which will include a long-term strategy to reduce the state's vulnerability by addressing water supply and water demand together.

36

R E C O M M E N D AT I O N S
The State of Georgia faces many challenges in its quest for a sustainable water supply. The northern part of the state must meet the water supply needs of a rapidly growing population in an area with relatively low stream flow rates and very limited groundwater reserves. Water supplies in the southeast region of the state are threatened by saltwater intrusion into fresh water aquifers due to declining water tables. And in the southwest region of the state, depletion of groundwater sources and reductions in stream flows linked to crop irrigation is impacting drinking water supplies and agricultural production.
Because of these issues, fresh water sources in many regions of the state are approaching their sustainable limits. And all of these problems are made more severe by the prolonged drought in Georgia. The current drought will eventually end when enough rain falls. This is something that cannot be managed or controlled. But Georgia does have the ability to control its level of drought preparedness, reduce its drought vulnerability and effectively manage its resources to meet the complex water demands of its natural environment, citizens and economic prosperity.
Initiatives to effectively manage water resources can only be achieved through cooperation and collaboration among Georgia's eight million citizens. Individuals must conserve water at home and at work. Businesses and industries across the state must find more efficient ways to use water and eliminate waste. Farmers must help find solutions that reduce their irrigation needs while protecting their crops. And local governments must drought-proof themselves prior to the next drought through interconnections with neighbors, increased storage capacity (by building their own reservoirs where regional reservoirs are inappropriate) and aggressive conservation programs.

The six recommendations provided below are designed to supplement actions taken by all Georgians to better manage their water resources, and can be facilitated by a number of state agencies, including EPD.
1. Emergency Relief: The State of Georgia should provide emergency grants and loans to assist local governments with critical or threatened water supplies.
2. Water Conservation: The State of Georgia must develop a comprehensive water conservation plan to address a wide range of water conserving measures that can be implemented to reduce water demand in Georgia.
3. Water Supply: The State of Georgia must fund implementation of the Water Supply Act of 1989 to build regional reservoirs to effectively address the long-term water supply needs of Georgia's communities.
4. Agricultural Water Use: The State of Georgia must develop an effective method to evaluate consumptive use of water for agricultural irrigation, and implement programs for reducing water use while protecting the prosperity of farmers and agricultural communities.
5. State Water Plan: The State of Georgia must perform a detailed review of existing water policy and laws and develop a comprehensive state water plan that will provide the framework and support for effective management of Georgia's water resources.
6. State Drought Plan: The State of Georgia must continue developing a comprehensive drought plan and drought management process in order to implement appropriate drought response, preparedness and mitigation measures in future droughts.

37

APPENDIX
Table A1. Stream Flows in Georgia, May 1998October 2000
Source: Prepared by EPD using data from USGS

Location

County

Savannah River Basin Chattooga River Clayton Broad River Bell Altamaha River Basin Ocmulgee River Macon Ocmulgee River Lumber City Oconee River Dublin Ohoopee River Reidsville Altamaha River Doctortown Satilla River Basin Satilla River Waycross Suwanee River Basin Alapaha River Statenville Chattahoochee River Basin Chattahoochee River Buford Dam Chattahoochee River Norcross Big Creek Alpharetta Sweetwater Creek Austell

Columbia Elbert
Bibb Telfair/Jeff Davis Laurens Tattnall Wayne
Ware
Echols
Gwinnett/Forsyth Gwinnett/Fulton Fulton Douglas

Streamflow gages that set new monthly low flow records and were within 5% of the daily low flow record Streamflow gages that set new daily and/or monthly low flow records Streamflow gages that were within 10% of the daily and/or monthly low flow record

Period of Record

Previous Lowest Daily Flow CFS (Date)

Previous Lowest Monthly Average CFS (Date)

New Lowest Daily Flow CFS (Date)

New Lowest Monthly Average CFS (Date)

1939current 1937current

88 (10/8/54) 96 (7/23/86)

98.6 (10/55) 148 (10/55)

18931912; 1928current 1936 current 1987current 19031907; 1937current 1931current

128 (10/24/54) 808 (10/30/54) 351 (10/19/54) 19 (9/12/54) 1430 (10/27/54)

165 (10/55) 887 (10/55) 469 (10/55) 20.8 (10/55) 1748 (10/55)

426 (7/00)

1937current

5.5 (10/9/90)

7.34 (9/90)

1931current

17 (11/10/54)

21 (11/55)

1941current 19021946;1956current 1960current 19041905; 1937current

262 (5/18/58) 351 (9/1/57) 1.7 (7/22/86) 2.1 (10/9/54)

38

424 (6/57) 501 (8/57) 10.5 (6/88 & 7/86) 4.36 (9/54)

0.15 (7/22/00)

Location

County

Period of Record

Previous Lowest Daily Flow CFS (Date)

Upatoi Creek Columbus Flint River Basin Flint River Culloden
Flint River Montezuma Flint River Oakfield Kinchafoonee Creek Dawson Muckalee Creek Leesburg Flint River Newton Ichawaynochaway Creek Milford Spring Creek Iron City
Coosa River Basin Conasauga River Eton
Oostanaula River Rome Etowah River Canton Etowah River Allatoona Dam

Muscogee/Chattahoochee 1968current

Taylor/Upson
Macon Worth Lee Lee Baker Baker Decatur

19111923; 19281931; 1937current 19041912; 1930current 19291958; 1987current 19491965; 1985current 1979current 19381950; 1956current 19051907; 1939current 192021;193771;197679; 1982current

Murray/Whitfield
Floyd Cherokee Bartow

19541958; 19631981; 1981current Gage Height reading only 18921905; 1936current 1938current

Note: Streamflow is measured in cubic feet per second (cfs). New record lows are records set between May 1998 and October 2000.

74 (7/15/86) 87 (7/22/86) 448 (8/8/86) 152 (6/8/41) 39 (7/15/86) 12 (7/20/86) 840 (10/20/40) 48 (7/19/86) 5.1 (8/14/86)
24 (7/11/88)
122 (7/23/86) 132 (3/14/93)

Previous Lowest Monthly Average CFS (Date)
92.9 (7/86)
108 (10/55)
579 (7/86) 683 (8/88) 62.4 (7/86) 35.1 (7/86) 1144 (7/86) 96.6 (7/86) 9.12 (8/86)
40.2 (9/87)
198 (8/86) 268 (2/56)

New Lowest Daily Flow CFS (Date)

New Lowest Monthly Average CFS (Date)

66 (7/10/00) 91 (7/00)

39 (7/23/00) 86 (7/00)

56 (8/19/00)

511 (7/00) 198 (8/00)

12 (8/29/00) 0 (8/29/00)

982 (7/00) 56 (6/00) 0.1 (8/00)

39

Table A2. Wells in Georgia Setting Record Low Levels between May 1998 and October 2000
Source: Prepared by EPD using data from USGS

County

Aquifer

1 Baker 2 Bulloch 3 Bulloch 4 Bulloch 5 Burke 6 Burke 7 Burke 8 Burke 9 Calhoun 10 Camden 11 Camden 12 Camden 13 Camden 14 Charlton 15 Chattahoochee 16 Cook 17 Crisp 18 Crisp 19 Dawson 20 Decatur 21 Decatur 22 Decatur 23 DeKalb 24 Dougherty 25 Dougherty 26 Dougherty 27 Dougherty 28 Dougherty 29 Dougherty 30 Dougherty 31 Dougherty 32 Dougherty

Upper Floridan Upper Brunswick Floridan Upper Floridan Gordon Lower Dublin Midville Lower Midville Upper Floridan Upper Floridan Upper Floridan Upper Floridan Upper Floridan Upper Floridan Cretaceous Upper Floridan Claiborne Clayton Crystalline Rock Surficial Upper Floridan Upper Floridan Crystalline Rock Upper Floridan Upper Floridan Upper Floridan Upper Floridan Upper Floridan Upper Floridan Upper Floridan Upper Floridan Claiborne

Well Name
Blue Springs Hopeulikit Test 2 Hopeulikit Test 1 USGS Bulloch South Test 1 Brighams Landing Test 3 Brighams Landing Test 2 USGS Midville Test 1 Brighams Landing Test 1 Bill Jordan USNPS Cumberland Is. Huntly-Jiffy US Navy Kings Bay Test 1 Rayland Company 1 USGS OK-9 US Army Ft. Benning Adel Test Veterans Memorial Test 2 Veterans Memorial Test 1 USGS Test 1 USGS Test DP-6 USGS Test DP-4 Graham Bolton USGS Test 5 USGS Test 15 Albany South Observation Nilo Test Well North Miller Ammo Supply USGS Test 14 USGS Test 3 USGS Test 16 Vandy Musgrove USGS Test 4

1988 New Record
q

1999 New Record
q q q q q q q q q q
q q q
q q q q
q

2000 New Record
q q q q q
q
q q
q
q q q q q q q q q
q q q q q q

Monitored
Since
1982 1982 1983 1983 1995 1995 1980 1995 1983 1994 1993 1979 1995 1978 1953 1964 1984 1984 1956 1980 1980 1969 1980 1982 1997 1979 1985 1982 1977 1985 1982 1978

40

County

Aquifer

33 Dougherty 34 Dougherty 35 Dougherty 36 Dougherty 37 Dougherty 38 Dougherty 39 Dougherty 40 Early 41 Early 42 Fulton 43 Glynn 44 Gordon 45 Grady 46 Johnson 47 Laurens 48 Laurens 49 Lee 50 Lee 51 Lee 52 Liberty 53 Long 54 McIntosh 55 Miller 56 Miller 57 Miller 58 Mitchell 59 Mitchell 60 Mitchell 61 Mitchell 62 Mitchell 63 Montgomery 64 Pulaski 65 Randolph 66 Randolph 67 Randolph

Claiborne Claiborne Claiborne Clayton Clayton Clayton Providence Claiborne Clayton Crystalline Rock Lower Floridan Paleozoic Rock Floridan Midville Upper Floridan Midville Claiborne Claiborne Clayton Upper Floridan Upper Floridan Upper Floridan Surficial Upper Floridan Upper Floridan Surficial Upper Floridan Upper Floridan Upper Floridan Claiborne Upper Floridan Midville Claiborne Clayton Clayton

Well Name
USGS Test 5 USGS Test 11 Miller Brewing Co. USGS Test 12 Albany Nursery Albany Turner City 2 USGS Test 10 Kolomoki Mounds Test 3 Kolomoki Mounds Test 1 Fort McPherson USGS Test 26 Calhoun Test 1 USGS Cairo USGS Test 1 Danny Hogan Laurens 3 USGS Test 8 Pete Long Test 2 USGS Test 9 USGS Test 1 USGS Test 3 USFWS USGS Test DP-3 Viercocken USGS Test DP-2 USGS Test DP-12 USGS Test DP-11 Harvey Meinders Aurora Dairy USGS Test DP-10 Board of Education USGS Arrowhead Test 1 CT Martin Test 1 CT MartinTest 2 Cuthbert

1988 New Record

1999 New Record

q q
q q
q q q q q

q

q

q

q

q q
q

2000 New Record
q q q q q q
q q q
q q q q q q q q q q q q q
q q q q q q q q q

Monitored
Since
1978 1979 1979 1979 1973 1957 1978 1984 1984 1973 1978 1997 1964 1980 1964 1982 1978 1984 1978 1967 1968 1966 1980 1977 1980 1981 1981 1961 1978 1981 1966 1991 1984 1984 1965

41

County

Aquifer

Well Name

68 Richmond 69 Seminole 70 Tift 71 Toombs 72 Twiggs 73 Ware 74 Washington 75 Wayne 76 Wayne 77 Wayne 78 Wayne 79 White 80 Worth 81 Worth 82 Worth

Dublin-Midville Upper Floridan Upper Floridan Upper Floridan Dublin Floridan Dublin-Midville Surficial Upper Brunswick Upper Floridan Upper Floridan Crystalline Rock Upper Floridan Upper Floridan Claiborne

USGS McBean 2 Roddenberry Test 1 USGS Test 1 Vidalia 2 USGS Test 3 USGS Test 1 Sandersville 8 Gardi Test 3 Gardi Test 2 USGS Test 1 Jesup Housing Authority Unicoi State Park 4 USGS Test DP-8 Sylvester USGS Test DP-7

1988 New Record

1999 New Record

q q
q

q q

q q
q q q

2000 New Record
q q q q q q
q q q q q q q q

Monitored
Since
1979 1979 1978 1974 1975 1981 1985 1983 1983 1983 1964 1988 1980 1972 1980

42

Figure A1. Map of Regions and Counties in Georgia
Source: Prepared by EPD
Metro Atlanta Area Mountains Piedmont Atlantic Coastal Plain Gulf Coastal Plain
43

SELECTED REFERENCES
Evans, Robert O., Kerry A. Harrison, James E. Hook, Charles V. Privette, William I. Segers, W. Bryan Smith, Daniel L. Thomas and Anthony W. Tyson. (1998). "Irrigation Conservation Practices Appropriate for the Southeastern United States." Project Report 32. Prepared in cooperation with the Georgia Department of Natural Resources, EPD under Proposal No. ES61135FC1. Atlanta, GA.
Georgia State Climate Office. (1998). Climatology of the Georgia Mountains, Piedmont and Coastal Plains. College of Agricultural and Environmental Sciences, University of Georgia. http://www.bae.uga.edu/climate/. Athens, GA.
McKissick, John C., Brigid A. Doherty, R. Jeff Teasley and Bill Givan. (2000). Estimating Drought 2000's Cost of Georgia's Agriculture and Rural Economy. Center for Agribusiness and Economic Development. The University of Georgia. Special Report No. 11.

National Drought Mitigation Center. (1996). Drought and Climate Change. http://enso.unl.ed/enigma/cchange.htm. Lincoln, NE.
U.S. Department of Agriculture's Office of Communications and the National Drought Policy Commission Staff. (May 2000). "Preparing for Drought in the 21st Century" Report of the National Drought Policy Commission. Washington D.C.
Wilhite, Donald A. (1997). Improving Drought Management in the West: The Role of Mitigation and Preparedness. National Drought Mitigation Center. Lincoln, NE.

44

Georgia Department of Natural Resources Environmental Protection Division 205 Butler Street, SE Suite 1152 Atlanta, Georgia 30334 1.888.373.5947 404.657.5947 (in Atlanta) www.state.ga.us/dnr/environ
Printed on recycled paper