Georgia’s regulators and the Governor’s office eliminated a key provision that protected the state’s world renowned “Marshes of Glynn.” They announced the policy rollback during a meeting in Savannah only miles from the salt marsh that so inspired poet Sidney Lanier. And the meeting took place on April 22 – also known as Earth Day.
What did the Environmental Protection Division (EPD) and the Governor’s office do? They changed the way the state will define and delineate the buffers that are responsible for protecting state waters.
Fresh water and saltwater buffers act like filters between land disturbing activity and the surface water we need to drink, fish and wildlife need to live, or boats need to float. In general, the wider and less undisturbed the buffer is, the better the buffer is for nature protection, pollution control and wildlife conservation in fresh water and saltwater environments.
According to Georgia’s Erosion and Sedimentation Act (1975), all streams, creeks and rivers are protected by an undisturbed twenty-five foot riparian buffer of land stretching outward from each side of the waterway. Furthermore, all trout streams have fifty foot buffers. And per the terms of the Georgia Planning Act (1989), a one-hundred-fifty foot impervious surface setback is required on each side of a stream seven miles upstream from a drinking water supply reservoir. Undisturbed buffers help make clean water.
How does the state measure riparian buffers and setbacks? From the top of the bank. Anybody who has driven to the boat ramp or walked a creek knows what the banks look like. Streams, creeks and rivers have easily defined banks where moving water has undercut the adjacent land or has “wrested vegetation,” that is, the moving water has created conditions where most vegetation cannot grow on a bank.
What about the coastal marsh – how do you delineate a buffer in places where there is no wrested vegetation?
The jurisdictional line is defined in another key piece of Georgia’s environmental legacy: the Coastal Marshlands Protection Act (1970). This line delineates where the marshlands end and the uplands begin. Since 1993, EPD’s policy has stated that where there is no wrested vegetation in Georgia’s saltwater marsh, the state would measure a twenty-five foot buffer on the upland side (landward) of the “jurisdictional line.” A former CRD director offers this simple explanation about how the coastal buffer policy previously worked in the Savannah Morning News.
The Coastal Marshlands Protection Act surfaced in the wake of a disturbing 1968 proposal by the Kerr-McGee Corporation to strip mine Georgia’s salt marsh and extract phosphate to process into fertilizer. According to author Charles Seabrook’s book Salt Marsh, the Oklahoma-based company proposed to dig down through seventy to one-hundred-twenty feet of marsh to reach the mineral booty, and to use the overburden and dredged leftovers to fill whatever marsh remained to create ‘dry’ land for development. (Think about what south Florida’s coastal landscape looks like around Miami.)
After the plan was announced, Georgia’s Governor Lester Maddox was compelled to assemble a panel to evaluate the mining proposal. In a golden age of medicine and technology when scientists’ research was well respected and they had influential seats at the policy making table, the final report concluded that mining would be detrimental to coastal and ocean environments. They also recommended a state agency regulate the coast and marsh; today the Coastal Resources Division (CRD is a Department of Natural Resources’ unit) provides the recommended management as well as overseeing and permitting activities that take place atop sandbars, on the beach and in the dunes according to mandates of the Shore Protection Act (1992).
While Kerr-McGee’s 1968 proposal was shot down, other threats emerged in tandem: a pulp/paper company floated the idea of draining the marsh for a pine tree plantation and a chemical company proposed to dump contaminated soil in the marsh.
All of these dangerous coastal proposals motivated one legislator to act. In 1968, Representative Reid W. Harris (Brunswick) – with crucial assistance from Savannah attorney Ogden Doremus, a.k.a “Mr. Environment” – introduced the Coastal Marshlands Protection Act. The bill moved out of committee but serious opposition forced the bill to wait until 1970 before it cleared the Senate. Gov. Maddox – backed by industrial and economic interests – threatened to veto the measure. But he ultimately signed the bill into law – on the last possible day to do so on March 27, 1970 – in response to the mountains of letters urging him to save the marshes of Glynn and coastal Georgia.
Today, the Marshlands Protection Act governs and permits activities that take place in the salt marsh and tidal wetlands. Since the 1990s, EPD measured the marsh buffer from the jurisdictional line as determined by CRD. And this brings us back the EPD’s Earth Day 2014 digression.
On April 22, EPD Director Jud Turner issued a memo announcing “buffers along salt marsh boundaries will be measured from the point of wrested vegetation” where it exists, but “where evidence of wrested vegetation is not present” – as is the primary case for all of Georgia’s salt marsh from Glynn County to Wassaw Sound – there will be no protective buffer at all.
The decision to no longer require a twenty-five foot buffer between saltwater marsh and upland development is in violation of the Erosion and Sedimentation Act which requires all state waters to be protected by buffers.
The decision is a direct threat to Georgia’s half-a-million acres of fresh water and saltwater marshland. Georgia’s marshes range from four to eight miles wide and extend the full length o four one hundred mile coastline. Georgia’s coastline – which is unlike most Atlantic coastal regions – has the second largest amount of salt marsh in the country. This fact means Georgia’s coast makes up an estimated one-third of all the salt marshes on the East Coast.
The Coastal Advisory Panel – an appointed body of thirty local government, NGO and academic representatives who specifically advise DNR and CRD on coastal issues – formally rejected EPD’s Earth Day decision.
Some coastal local governments have decided to “do EPD’s job,” and to pass ordinances instituting their own buffer protections for the coastal marsh.
Want to help Save Our Salt Marsh?
Attend the Sustainable Atlanta Roundtable’s “Coastal peril in Georgia” event on June 6 at Southface to hear from environmental professionals.
Please visit 100 Miles for more information on how to contact elected representatives, the Governor’s office and the EPD Director. Ask them to save the marsh and reverse this terrible new policy.
More reading on the issue here:
-Steve Caley, “Earth Day ‘present’ from Nathan Deal’s administration threatens to destroy state’s fragile coastal marshes,” in the Saporta Report
-Dave Kyler, “More Crimes and Misdemeanors,” in Connect Savannah
-Dave Kyler, “Stunning reversal threatens Georgia’s marshes,” in SavannahNow
SB 213 – which revised the Flint River Drought Protection Act (2000) and now awaits the Governor’s signature – will now provide exactly what the bill’s sponsors and the Environmental Protection Division have said they have desired for almost two years: the ability to protect augmented flows in order to protect vulnerable aquatic life in specific areas of the Flint River basin. And, as the AJC noted, the bill is a “far cry” from what was originally introduced. What the sponsors – and even Georgia’s Governor – have said for months and what was written in the bill were two different things.
This incongruence – between the spoken and written word – is why SB 213 slogged its way through the legislative process. Why else would a bill be recommitted to committee in the final minutes on Day 40 of the 2013 General Assembly’s session? And in 2014, why would the bill get sent back for committee tinkering three more times in five weeks before getting amended again on the House floor on Day 37? A vast majority of House members realized the legislation was overly broad and enabled the state to own water – changing water law and diminishing property rights. But the real reason for the slog: SB 213 did not have the votes to pass the House until it was fixed.
When SB 213 was introduced in 2013, the bill was broad in scope and scale. The bill’s stated intent – in spoken and written word – was to revise a broken piece of legislation that included a non-functional voluntary auction. The bill included other good intentions such as targets for agricultural irrigation efficiency. And there was much talk – but little in the bill – about protecting farmers from “EPA” lawsuits over endangered species. Finally, the bill’s geographic limitation was defined as a generalized “Flint River basin.” Perhaps more important, “augmentation” was not initially defined at all in the bill.
What none of the SB 213’s cheerleaders wanted to admit publically for almost two years, was SB 213’s connection to a “water exchange.” In 2012, the Governor’s Water Supply Program funneled $4.6M to a proposed aquifer storage and recovery (ASR) project in the Flint River basin. That scheme, originally projected to cost Metro rate-payers $1.2 BILLION to build and $100 million a year to operate, is now moving forward as a $5M “Pilot Project.” The original plan was to provide 250 million gallons from the Flint River basin per day to Florida that would otherwise have had to come from Lake Lanier, while drying the Chattahoochee south of Atlanta. Until March 12, 2014, SB 213 would have provided statutory protection for this expensive scheme while changing Georgia water law. SB 213 could have been the massive ASR project’s legislative side-car, making it a tool in Georgia’s tri-state water war tool box.
On the same day the Governor endorsed SB 213 as one solution for the tri-state water war at the Georgia Water Summit, a bi-partisan coalition introduced an alternative bill (HB 1085) with 37 co-sponsors that protected Georgia farmers from Endangered Species Act law suits. HB 1085 died in a hearing-only (non-voting) committee meeting the following day. SB 213 opponents again offered another amendment that linked augmentation specifically to Endangered Species Act protections, but the bill’s sponsors rejected the provision. In this course of events, SB 213’s proponents signaled they were more interested in sending large volumes of water to benefit Florida’s oysters, which are not endangered, than protecting Georgia’s threatened and endangered wildlife, farmers and property owners.
But in the final push on Day 37 (2014) – a formidable coalition of House members successfully narrowed the bill. SB 213 still allows the EPD director to prohibit certain permittees from withdrawing water downstream of an augmentation project, however we now have a definition of what an augmentation project is for. Furthermore, augmentation projects are limited to a specific area in the lower Flint River basin for the sole purpose of maintaining minimum stream flows sufficient to protect habitat critical for vulnerable aquatic life. These types of projects will not produce the massive quantities of water originally protected by SB 213. As defined, augmentation will benefit vulnerable aquatic wildlife in Georgia, as is already happening in Spring Creek.
SB 213 now reads as it was sold. And for that, all Georgians should be thankful.
On November 26, 2013, Altamaha Riverkeeper (ARK) filed a notice of intent to sue Rayonier Performance Fibers for violating the federal Clean Water Act (CWA). More specifically, ARK – represented by Green Law, Stack & Associates and Southern Environmental Law Center – asserts that discharges from Rayonier’s Jesup mill into the river exceed the company’s National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit limits for color and odor.
This notice of intent to file a CWA suit would be at least the second in Georgia in as many years involving an illegal discharge and NPDES permit. The other notable action involved King America Finishing’s (KAF) illegal discharge into the Ogeechee River. KAF eventually settled out-of-court with dozens of individual property owners (for undisclosed terms) and Ogeechee Riverkeeper. The company agreed to spend more than $6 million to clean-up the river after operating an illegal discharge for at least five years.
What’s wrong with the Altamaha? You can see the color from the air. I have written about the Altamaha and Rayonier’s history previously – start here first, then read the Georgia Water Coalition’s 2013 Dirty Dozen Report, and finally read about the origins of the CWA.
Why do permits matter? NPDES permits are required of all point-source discharges into waters of the United States, and must be renewed every five years. While the federal Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is primarily responsible for implementing the CWA, EPA delegates regulatory authority (i.e. permitting, enforcement, etc.) to Georgia’s Environmental Protection Division (EPD). Rayonier’s NPDES permit expired in 2006 and has been administratively extended. Rayonier submitted an application for a new permit to EPD in 2012.
A Forest for the Trees: Rayonier does not just turn trees into fiber; they also own, lease or manage more than 2.7 million acres of land under the trees in the U.S. and New Zealand (including about 700,000 acres in Georgia). The company is also selling Georgia coastal property, and converting old timberland into residential, commercial and industrial properties. On January 27, 2014 – about two months after ARK announced the intention to file suit – Rayonier officially split into two corporate identities: Rayonier, Inc. will be a timber and real estate entity; and a performance fiber entity. ARK’s notice of intent was “not even a factor” in Rayonier’s corporate division, according to an executive quoted in the AJC.
Triple Threat: Given the toxic chemical spill in West Virginia, the toxic coal ash pond collapse in North Carolina and illegal toxic discharges in Georgia, the time has come excise undue corporate influence from the regulatory ecosystem. Many of these cases have demonstrated that industry cannot be solely depended upon to self-report critical information after spills (Freedom Industries’ executives “did not skim far enough into” a critical internal email), manage their own disaster sites (Duke Energy initially denied a second leak), or disclose new or changed discharges (for five years).
These un-natural disasters – two of which continue to unfold – are not natural by any stretch of the imagination: each example demonstrates why regulation and robust oversight of private industry is necessary to protect clean water. (To make matters worse, South Carolina legislators are attempting to change a state law and limit citizens’ ability to sue polluters.) The alternative – a regulatory system that serves “customers” as opposed to the public – is clearly not working.
Not unlike the answer to my last post regarding January’s economically disruptive Elk River chemical spill in Charleston, WVa., toxic coal ash has spilled in Georgia as it recently did into the Dan River in North Carolina and Virginia. More troubling than Georgia’s past coal ash spill is the reality that another toxic spill could easily happen in Georgia’s future. Unless we decide we don’t want that to happen.
What is coal ash? Put simply, coal ash is a by-product of burning coal to boil water to generate steam to produce electricity. Coal ash is highly toxic and contains arsenic, mercury, cadmium, chromium, lead, selenium and zinc. Coal ash can be stored in a dry and a wet manner. However, coal ash sites – particularly wet coal ash ponds – are unlined. Unlined ponds can and do leak (14 of Duke Energy’s North Carolina ponds are leaking) meaning that coal ash sites have and will continue to contaminate ground and surface water unless they are better managed and regulated.
Furthermore, the ‘dams’ and earthen berms surrounding artificial coal ash ponds have Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) “hazard” ratings. This means we know that many toxic coal ash pounds are at risk of failing and collapsing if they were not properly constructed or maintained. Visit the Southeast Coal Ash Waste website to identify if a coal ash site is near you.
Consciousness Raising: In December 2008, the nation’s largest coal ash disaster occurred when the Tennessee Valley Authority’s pond in Kingston failed. More than 1,000,000,000 (billion) gallons of liquid coal ash spilled into the Emory River. The river bed filled with coal ash, snuffing out aquatic wildlife and swallowing up homes. With this dramatic wake-up call, national attention has focused on reforming the national toxic coal ash regulatory framework.
The Dan: On the afternoon of February 2, 2014, a security guard patrolling Duke Energy’s retired Dan River Steam Station in Eden, N.C. noticed a drop in the coal ash pond’s level. Upon further inspection, staff discovered a storm water pipe running under the pond and directly to the river had collapsed. The public would have to wait more than 24-hours before learning that tons of coal ash had been discharged into the Dan River. Estimates of the discharge now range from 30,000 to 82,000 tons of ash, and up to 27 million gallons of water flowed into the river over a ten days. Yet another discharge was discovered on February 13. The Dan River coal ash spill is considered the third largest in the nation, according to EPA.
This coal-fired steam plant – retired in 2012 – is six miles upstream from Danville, Va.’s municipal drinking water intake. Danville Utilities’ authorities have asserted that regardless of the contaminates in the water column that may be entering the water treatment plant – which potentially included arsenic levels four times the state’s human health standards – the treated water delivered to its 43,000 customers is safe and clean.
On February 12, 2014, the N.C. Department of Health issued an advisory declaring that individuals should avoid contact with the Dan River and that the river’s fish and mussels are not fit for human consumption. But anglers had already expressed skepticism about eating the fish after the spill, and others simply think Duke, N.C. agencies and EPA are “hiding things” and information about the full extent of the spill. The news one day later – that a federal grand jury has opened an “official criminal investigation of a suspected felony” and issued subpoenas to Duke Energy and the N.C. Department of Environment and Natural Resources – suggests somebody else thinks something is indeed ‘hiding.’
Taking Coal Ash to Court: Suits levied in South Carolina against South Carolina Electric & Gas and Santee Cooper Power over coal ash management at the Waccamaw and Wateree stations resulted in agreements to remove coal ash from unlined ponds on the rivers’ banks and into lined facilities located away from the rivers.
Then in 2013, a coalition of environmental groups announced their intent to launch multiple Clean Water Act citizen suits against Duke Energy for illegal discharges from the Asheville Steam Station’s, the Riverbend Steam Station’s and the L.V. Sutton Plant’s coal ash ponds. The state of North Carolina intervened in these cases to shield Duke from full-blown CWA suits and has proposed settlements. The state’s proposed settlement and consent decree was already contested by the public before the Dan River breach and remain in a holding pattern.
In October 2013, Duke Energy – the nation’s largest energy utility – agreed in related suits and settlements to pay $1,800,000 to connect Flemington, N.C. to a local water utility because the community’s ground water wells had been contaminated by the Sutton Plant’s coal ash pond. Duke also agreed to provide water to a homeowner living adjacent to the Asheville Power Station and coal ash pond.
Georgia Coal Ash: There are forty-one active and inactive coal ash impoundments – including twenty-nine coals ash ponds – in Georgia. Two of the ponds have a “high hazard” rating and ten are considered “significant hazards.” And at least one of these sites has already failed. On July 28, 2002, Plant Bowen’s (Georgia Power) coal ash pond failed and discharged more than 2,000,000 pounds (218 tons) of toxin-laden coal ash into the Euharlee Creek (an Etowah River tributary), upstream of Rome’s municipal drinking water intake.
And another site – Plant Scherer (Georgia Power) in Juliette and upstream of Macon – has become a target of 123 Monroe County current and former property owners who claim toxic coal ash is responsible for off-site groundwater contamination. Scherer – one of the nation’s largest emitters of carbon dioxide – is home to an unlined pond containing at least 5,000,000,000 (billion) gallons of toxic coal ash.
What can be done? Federal regulators, Georgia’s coal ash site operators, and state regulators and legislators can make choices to secure toxic coal ash sites now.
First, EPA must issue long promised coal ash rules to establish federal minimum standards for coal ash management.
Second, Georgia’s legislators and regulators must develop a robust regulatory process requiring groundwater monitoring and reporting for active and inactive sites; transfer of coal ash from unlined to lined sites; liners for new ash storage facilities; emergency action plans; and inundation maps should a pond fail.
Furthermore, HB 136 (sponsored by Representative Mary Margaret Oliver) would add a definition of “coal combustion waste” and require a permit for coal ash storage in lined ponds. However, the bill has been denied the hearing that it deserves, leaving Georgia’s rivers and communities like Juliette exposed to the toxic coal ash threats.
The consequences of the chemical spill in the Elk River and the coal ash spill into the Dan River demonstrate that cries to de-regulate industry to promote business is a losing proposition. When a chemical spill can wreck a city’s water treatment and distribution system, and coal ash spills threaten to do the same, we should interpret regulation not as a burden but as an imperative for healthy communities and economies.
If you asked folks from Charleston, West Virginia what the price of clean water is, they’d probably say priceless. More than 300,000 customers of the publically-traded West Virginia American Water Co. (NYSE: AWK) were told on January 9, 2014 the only thing they could do with the water piped to their homes, restaurants, businesses and hotels was to flush it. No drinking; no bathing children; no clothes washing; no hand washing after using the bathroom. For six to ten days depending on where a customer lived.
The Governor declared a state of emergency. The water crisis also delayed the opening day of the state’s legislative assembly, which according to this excellent New York Times story has worked hard over the years to deregulate the state’s natural resource agencies to benefit the coal industry.
Can West Virginia’s water crisis happen in Georgia? While Georgians might think it can’t, unfortunately, it already has on at more than one occasion.
Georgia state legislators have choices right now to avoid future clean water crises. The first would be to step away from SB 299 – a bill that would roll back safe drinking water protections. SB 299 will negatively affect any surface water steam that provides public drinking water supplies.
And the second choice would benefit from a little history to elicit support for HB 549. This bill will require Georgia’s Environmental Protection Division (EPD) to maintain a robust emergency response program, require appropriate and timely responses to emergencies that threaten the state’s waters, and require proper public notification and coordination between the state and local communities to protect the health of our families during emergencies.
Why couldn’t West Virginian’s drink, bathe or cook with the water in their homes and businesses? At least 7,500 gallons of two chemicals used by the coal-industry escaped from Freedom Industries’ tank farm and property, sullying the Elk River only 1.5 miles upstream from American Water’s drinking water treatment plant intake. According to some customers, the water coming from taps smelled like licorice and was colored. According to the Charleston Gazette, American Water is already facing lawsuits and Freedom Industry has filed for bankruptcy. And as one columnist asked: “Why wasn’t there a plan” to respond to a spill emergency?
In a story that should sound familiar to some Georgians, West Virginia’s emergency response was bungled. The Water Company and the chemical company had never coordinated how they might respond to an emergency. And the Material Data Safety Sheet – an industry standard information source – provided insufficient information. For example, nobody – not even the Environmental Protection Agency or the Centers for Disease Control – could say with certainty what level of chemical exposure an individual could safely withstand. Hundreds of people sought medical treatment. It took almost six hours before the order not to drink or touch tap water was issued.
A number of recent spills and threats to clean water in Georgia demonstrate the need for robust laws, regulation and emergency response.
In July 2010, the J & J Chemical warehouse went up in flames. According to this story, the company may not have been in compliance with Department of Homeland Security. Perhaps if the fire crew had been fully aware of what was contained within the structure, they would not have poured 700,000 gallons of water on the fire, flushing blue dye, formaldehyde and para-dichlorobenzene into Trail Creek, where all aquatic wildlife was killed, and then into the Oconee River. Because local and state officials could not coordinate fast enough, citizens took the lead and posted signs to warn their neighbors about the spill.
And no state or industrial officials contacted the City of Waynesboro after an October 2011 spill in the heart of kaolin country threatened the municipality’s drinking water intake.
Even more recently in late 2013, the City of Thomaston shut their water intakes down days after a citizen informed the mayor of a spill and fish kill in a Potato Creek tributary. Georgia EPD has now linked the spill-kill to Jordan Forest Products, LLC and levied a $10,000 fine on January 8, 2014.
And there is the infamous Ogeechee story: King America Finishing (KAF) maintained an unpermitted discharge into the river for five years, which was a violation of the Clean Water Act. Drought and low flows of May 2011 (and again in 2012) caught up to the company when more than 38,000 fish died just before Memorial Day weekend. EPD spent seventeen hours trying to contact the company and local public health officials ‘closed’ the river because they could not get information.
After three years of litigation and EPD’s mis-steps, one chapter comes to a close. In November 2013, EPD issued KAF’s new National Pollutant Discharge Elimination Permit (NPDES) to cover all discharge lines and finalized a consent order requiring KAF to spend $1.3M on additional restoration projects. In mid-January 2014, KAF and the Ogeechee Riverkeeper (ORK) finalized a settlement to benefit the river. KAF will pay ORK $2.5M to fund river protection, and KAF will begin publically posting its monitoring data. The settlement and NPDES permit are unprecedented in Georgia, according to EPD.
The history of the Ogeechee, Trail Creek, Potato Creek and Briar Creek – and of course West Virginia’s Elk River situation – should remind everybody why clean water and protecting it matters. If we cannot protect the clean water we need to drink or bathe, our communities cannot thrive and our economies are threatened.
Georgia’s law makers and regulators should support HB 549 so what happened in West Virginia does not happen here (again).
The Georgia Water Coalition (GWC) released the 2013 Dirty Dozen on November 13. Georgia River Network is one of the GWC’s more than 200 partners, which represent a total of 300,000 Georgians.
The Dirty Dozen exposes the links between agency underfunding, legislative schemes, and political cronyism to offenses against Georgia’s waterways. You can read the press release here. You can find the full report (and links to the individual issues) on the GWC’s website. (If you are using Google Chrome, you may need to access your browsing data “History” and “empty the cache” to view the 2013 report).
The Dirty Dozen include examples of unacceptable industrial pollution of groundwater (Satilla River/Seven Out) and industrial stormwater that pollutes a stream flowing into Lake Lanier (Flat Creek/Pilgrim’s Pride).
A host of unnecessary reservoirs (Etowah/Richland Creek and Chattahoochee/Glades) funded by the Governor’s Water Supply Program make the list again. More than $160 million – out of more than $180 million – has been earmarked during the past two years to pay for expensive, unnecessary and environmentally damaging dam and reservoir projects.
The list also includes other water quality issues from last year that have not been resolved. While pulp fiber product giant Rayonier enjoyed profits of $411 million in 2012, its pulp plant in Jesup continues to foul the Altamaha.
Other items on the Dirty Dozen include a risky aquifer and recovery experiment that threatens the Floridan aquifer; local and state abdication of responsibility to halt water pollution caused by ATVs (Hurricane Creek); the orchestrated dewatering of the Flint River; ill-conceived changes to shoreline protection; and an underfunded state Safe Dams program (Lake Alice).
A number of issues also highlight the energy and water connection, including coal ash contamination (Ocmulgee/Plant Scherer), too much water withdrawn from the Savannah River for Plants Vogtle and McIntosh, and the potential for increased mercury pollution in conjunction with the struggling Plant Washington project (Oconee/Ogeechee).
The 2013 Dirty Dozen also provides success stories and updates for items that made the 2012 list.
In less than one week, the Dirty Dozen generated the following eighteen stories in newspaper, radio, television and online media markets all around the state:
- November 13, 2013, Gainesville Times, “Chattahoochee, Flat Creek make group’s ‘dirty dozen’ list,” by Sarah Mueller.
- November 13, 2013, AccessNorthGA.com, “Ga. Water Coalition ‘Dirty Dozen’ list includes 4 in N. Ga.,” by staff.
- November 13, 2013, WFXL/FOX 31 Albany, “Georgia Water Coalition names its 2013 Dirty Dozen,” by Franklin White. Click here for video.
- November 13, 2013, WYAY All News 106.7 – radio, interview with April Ingle.
- November 13, 2013, ConnectSavannah.com, “‘Dirty Dozen’ GA Waterways Announced,” by staff.
- November 13, 2013, Macon Telegraph, “Midstate waterways make Dirty Dozen list,” by Maggie Lee.
- November 13, 2013, Albany Herald, “Flint River Makes the Georgia Water Coalition Dirty Dozen List Again,” by Terry Lewis.
- November 13, 2013, Savannah Morning News, “‘Dirty Dozen’ includes proposed new changes to beach, marsh laws,” by Mary Landers.
- November 13, 2013, GPB, “Dirty Dozen mapping Georgia’s water problems,” by Orlando Montoya.
- November 13, 2013, The Florida Current, “Georgia’s group ‘Dirty Dozen’ list includes three issues affecting Florida,” by Bruce Ritchie.
- November 13, 2013, WSAV, “Three Area Rivers Remain on ‘Dirty Dozen List,’” by JoAnn Merrigan.
- November 13, 2013, LakeLanier.com, “‘Dirty Dozen’ Report on GA’s Waters,” by Robert Sutherland.
- November 14, 2013, WALB/ABC 10 Albany, “Flint River named among Georgia’s ‘Dirty Dozen’ water offences,” by Jim Wallace.
- November 14, 2013, WFXG/Fox 54 Augusta, “Flint River named among Georgia’s ‘Dirty Dozen’ water offences,” by Jim Wallace.
- November 14, 2013, Rome News-Tribune, “Etowah River makes ‘Dirty Dozen’ list of worst offenses against Georgia’s water,” by Alan Riquelmy.
- November 14, 2013, 1340 WGAU, April Ingle interview on Newsmakers with Tim Bryant.
- November 15, 2013, Brunswick News, “List brings attention to local waterways,” by Editors.
- November 16, 2012, LaGrange Daily News, “Chattahoochee again on ‘Dirty Dozen’ list,” by staff.
The recently released new application letters seeking money from the second round of the Governor’s Water Supply Program (GWSP) reveal the imprecise and targeted – and perhaps un-constitutional – nature of a revised funding mechanism known as state direct investment (SDI).
The GWSP was launched by Nathan Deal in 2011 to disburse $300,000,000 over three years in the form of low interest loans and SDI for water supply projects to provide “an adequate supply of clean and affordable water” to communities in need of water security. The Georgia Environmental Finance Authority (GEFA) was to administer the loans, and the Department of Community Affairs (DCA) was to budget for the SDI. In 2011 and 2012, and in consultation with Georgia State Financing and Investment Commission (GSFIC), all the parties agreed that SDI had to result in state ownership of a physical “definable asset with an appropriate fair market value and useful life,” like land, a well, a water tower, or other real property.
In 2012, the GWSP’s first round simultaneously awarded $99,550,000 in loans and SDI. The process revealed missed opportunities, political favoritism, and projects that demonstrated no need but were funded anyway, such as the Flint River aquifer storage and recovery (ASR) project in southwest Georgia.
Perhaps to avoid controversy again in 2013, GEFA re-wrote the scoring criteria for the second round of the GWSP. The biggest change eliminated the first and key threshold question that was asked of all projects in 2012: “Does the applicant(s) demonstrate a need for new water supply through 2050?” According to directions in the 2012 scoring criteria, “if the applicant does not demonstrate such a need, the applicant earns a zero for” the “Proposed Approach” criterion. In other words, the 2013 criteria stripped a key qualifying question that was responsible for a number of projects rating a zero for need in 2012, projects that included the Flint River ASR scheme and the Lake Lanier Islands water well. In 2013, applicants did not have to identify the need, they only had to indicate “the need is significant.”
With that criteria in hand, GEFA awarded four loans totaling $38,800,000 on August 27, 2013. Then GEFA decided to rewrite the scoring criteria again but only for SDI applications. GEFA, only with input from the Governor’s office and the Environmental Protection Division – and leaving DCA and GSFIC in the dark – arbitrarily redefined what classified as an “asset” for the purpose of awarding SDI to specific projects. They changed the rules in the middle of the game. Now, SDI awards do not have to result in state ownership of a physical asset. Now, a state agency with no legislative or regulatory authority claims – despite centuries of established riparian rights – that the state can own water in the form of augmented flow and quantities of water in a reservoir.
On October 11, 2013, GEFA allowed SDI applicants to revise and resubmit their applications based on the new rules. Five applicants resubmitted and two other applicants let theirs stand, however, the Madison Industrial Authority and Camp John Hope applications may no longer be eligible based on the new criteria. While only $44,000,000 is available, the total request amounts to more than $105,000,000. So what sort of asset do the applicants want the state to invest in?
The City of Dawsonville wants the state to spend $20,000,000 to purchase 1,100 acres of “real property” necessary for the proposed Calhoun Creek Reservoir. According to the applicant, Calhoun Creek will provide water supply, flow augmentation and drought mitigation benefits for the state of Georgia. The applicant sees little risk associated with the project. However, the state would be investing in a project that the applicant acknowledges is not needed or supported by any regional utility or other municipalities. Plus, the scheme is risky for environmental reasons: The proposal includes interbasin transfers (IBT) of raw water between river basins – in this case the Etowah and Chattahoochee – and this is unprecedented in Georgia. Read more about one citizen’s opinion of Calhoun Creek.
Beyond that application, what asset the state will get in return for spending tax dollars is murky at best.
The City of Auburn identifies why their rock quarry-to-water supply reservoir project will benefit Auburn, Winder, and Barrow County. Without the requested $2,500,000, Auburn “would have to raise its water rates.” But the letter fails to really specify how or why the project would benefit the state. Plus, GEFA already gave Auburn a $7,300,000 loan from the GWSP in September.
Paulding County already received a $21,600,000 GWSP loan in August to finance the Richland Creek Reservoir, in addition to $32,000,000 in loans awarded last year. That’s a lot of money for a reservoir the county “would not require” or need for another fifty years, according to their recent October 10 letter. Nevertheless, the county claims that $33,000,000 more in SDI would cover final design and construction phases. But, according to David Austin – the Chairman of the Paulding County Board of Commissioners and brother to the Metro North Georgia Water Planning District chairman (Boyd): “several questions must be answered concerning how the State would like to utilize the project and how much capacity the State would like to obtain through its participation.” In other words, Paulding County would like more of the state’s tax payer money but the state has not identified a need for water supply, increased safe yield or anything else. In letters dated October 10 and 14, Paulding states they have no idea what they would be giving to the state in return for state investment.
Carroll County already received a more the $9,000,000 loan from the GWSP in September to expand the existing and tiny Indian Creek reservoir in the Tallapoosa basin. Now the west Georgia community seeks a whopping $35,000,000 in SDI to build a bigger dam. This application letter again reveals the unformed nature of the SDI criteria: “the Authority is willing to explore an agreement with the state to assist it with flow augmentation and protection against drought.” What would the state actually be investing in? Good question; Carroll County does not actually say.
All roads, rivers and water politics in Georgia seem to lead to north Georgia and Glades Reservoir. Hall County has been working on the Glades project for decades, and has altered the project’s purpose and justification five times since 2007. Because of this long process, undefined need and the mounting tab (current estimate: $130,000,000), Hall County needs a bailout. The solution includes a $14,599,000 SDI request and a flat annual fresh water fee of $70 per tax parcel – regardless of size or value – levied on each of county’s approximately 75,000 tax parcels for at least fifteen years. The letter falsely claims: “the city of Gainesville has stated that is supports the project.” In fact, on October 1, 2013, the Gainesville City Council tabled a resolution on this very matter. Citizens were grateful.
The Governor’s office, GEFA, and EPD made a unilateral decision on how state dollars should be spent to secure water supplies for communities in need. When they discovered they couldn’t invest tax payers’ dollars in pet projects, they changed the rules in the middle of the game. But they did not seek any input from the experts. They made an end-round around GSFIC – the state’s financial planners – and undermined a system of checks and balances meant to ensure that state revenues and tax dollars are spent in compliance with the Constitution of the State of Georgia.