Skip to content

Bear Creek Far From Done Deal

November 7, 2012

The proposed Bear Creek Reservoir in Newton County continues to face an uphill march.  In the rain and snow.  Both ways.  This self-directed slog continues despite rumors that the US Army Corps of Engineers (and Georgia Environmental Protection Division) is apparently poised to issue a 404 permit (which would also include a 401 Water Quality Certification) for the project.  But here are some persistent and interconnected barriers.

Reservoir not needed: Reservoir consultant Tommy Craig recently alluded to the notion that Newton County does not need any water, according to this Rockdale Citizen article.  What?  Craig stated that the county should only build the Bear Creek dam and fill the pool.  That means no pumped-storage equipment, no pipes, and no drinking water treatment facility because there is no “demand for additional water beyond what is supplied” by the county’s existing drinking water treatment facility.

Board of Commission reconsiders:  Back in August, the Georgia Environmental Finance Authority (GEFA) presented Newton County with an option to accept a $21 million loan from the Governor’s Water Supply Program (GWSP) to build a dam so the pool might fill with Bear Creek water.  But rather than simply accept the loan in October, the Newton County Board of Commission (BOC) tabled a resolution stating an intention to accept the loan.

The resolution apparently included a requirement stipulated by GEFA that “the county commit to meeting projected operating revenues and paying off debt associated with the Bear Creek Reservoir” by preparing “an updated rate analysis to determine the required operating revenues to meet the terms of GEFA’s loan,” according to the Covington News.

Left holding the bag:  The BOC appears to be thinking long and hard about how rate and tax payers will pay off this boondoggle.  The project’s cost remains a moving target and the oft-cited $62 million cost does not include a water treatment facility or the necessary pipes.   Methods to pay of the mounting loan debt could include raising all water customers’ rates and/or all citizens’ taxes.

With no new customers – as previously alluded to by Craig – existing customers will have to pay for the proposed reservoir.  Remember, the proposed reservoir will not generate ANY revenue because it will not be connected to a drinking water treatment facility.  That is among the “big ticket” items that apparently inflated costs associated with Hard Labor Creek, another former Craig project and recent GWSP award recipient.

Given the lack of need, the lack of new customers, and the BOC’s apparent reluctance to raise rates and taxes, Newton County’s proposed Bear Creek reservoir is far from a done deal.  Permits and offered loans alone do not transform a reservoir from a mirage into a reality.

You can read more about Bear Creek’s history here.

-Chris Manganiello

Advertisements
3 Comments leave one →
  1. Bob Lord permalink
    November 9, 2012 10:47 am

    Chris,

    You do an outstanding job of keeping the spotlight on reservoir projects. However, you may not fully grasp the mindset of the Corps of Engineers when it comes to these projects. In this case, unless there is some “awakening” among the citizens of Newton County, the COE will issue the permit for the reservoir, the State will issue all needed approvals and permits, all other agencies will remain silent and the reservoir will be built. The Corps’ mindset is to work with all applicants to get them their permits, regardless of the “need” for a project. Applicants are the Corps’ “customers” and the Corps strives to provide the best customer service. Once the permit is issued, if the normal pattern is followed, the applicant will not follow through on the promised uses of the reservoir or implement the proposed mitigation plan. The applicant will come up with various excuses and get the Corps to modify the permit conditions to approve whatever the applicant really wants. In this case, perhaps, what is really wanted is a big reservoir with lots of waterfront property. That may be all the incentive needed to build the project.

    Bob Lord

  2. Samuel M. Hay, III permalink
    November 11, 2012 5:50 pm

    Having read a book in college, required reading, the supposition was The U. S. Army Corps of Engineers have but one goal. TO DAM UP THE WORLD!! Never mind the consequences. As we destroy forests, wetlands and the earth in general we may soon find that Mars was just like Earth at one time, It just got used up.

  3. Samuel M. Hay, III permalink
    August 3, 2013 5:01 am
    EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Samuel M. Hay, III EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Samuel M. Hay, III POB 2604 Covington, GA 30015 >State of Georgia House of Representatives >Environmental Committee Report >January 2004 Session > >List of demonstrated priorities: >1. Water Conservation >2. Production of Drinking Water Supplies/Sewerage Disposal >3. Fluoride >4. Ethylene Glycols >5. Teflon >6. Communicable Diseases >7. Transportation, Air Pollution, and the Automobile > > >I. Water Conservation > > > Water conservation in Georgia has never been a priority even >though it is the least expensive way to move the State into the >future without burdening the taxpayers/ratepayers with more >expensive treatment plants and destructive reservoir projects. > > As an example, an average reservoir designed to produce 10 MGD >can cost up to $100 million dollars. The need for such >facilities, designed to serve say 100,000 users, can be >eliminated by low flow showerheads. The math is simple. >Multiply 100,000 users X a 10 minute shower X 8 gallons per >minute (the normal shower head delivery now in use) and you get >eight million gallons per day, X 25% of the people who take two >showers per day and you have 12 MGD. > > The savings to go to a low flow shower head will produce a >daily savings of 8 million gallons per day. The good news is >if you don’t create a new 8 MGD per day of wastewater per >100,000 users you don’t have to handle it on the back end as >sewerage. > >Low flow showerheads are priced from $2.00 to around $10.00 >each. > > The destructive nature of reservoirs, and lack of conservation >measures, is outlined in many scientific studies and is known >here in Georgia in many aspects not the least of which is the >death of most all the marine hatch for two years from the salt >marshes in the Coastal Region of the State. > >Even the crab population is almost non-existent on the Georgia >Coast due to the lack of conservation measures and construction >of reservoirs in the State. A normal reservoir designed to >produce 10 MGD will lose around 2/3 of that amount daily to >evaporation. Up to 6 MGD, which is never used and does not >make its historical journey to the marshes and ultimately to the sea. > > The salt levels of Georgia’s marshes have increased to such >levels they have lost their ability to support ocean going sea >creatures as they hatch. The encroachment of salt water into >the rivers and streams due to the low flows of fresh water have >created a situation which could envelope Georgia into an >International crisis because this near 200 mile long coastal >region is considered by some biologists and professional >fishermen to be the most valuable estuary in the entire >Atlantic Ocean. > > David Waller, recently retired chief of the GADNR wildlife and >fisheries division, has been quoted as saying that you can now >drive down I-95 and see the line of demarcation of the salt >water moving upstream into the rivers and creeks. > > The new technologies, specifically but not limited to “Ultra >Filtration” as developed years ago by Saudi Arabia, available >to us can provide purer drinking water at much less costs than >the previous systems and eliminate the need for reservoirs by >using the recycle techniques and small amounts of make up water >from existing lakes and streams. (There are already 68,000 >ponds, lakes and reservoirs in Georgia) As compared to >reservoir costs which continue to spiral, a 10 MGD ultra >filtration system is priced under $25 million. > >In Monroe, Georgia, an ultra filtration system is up and >running with the performance and production exceeding their >expectations. Many persons are visiting this plant, including >officials from the U. S. Government and the visitors are so >numerous they now have to schedule tours of their new facility. > > A recent example of this equipment on the sewerage treatment >side is the Newton County Water and Sewerage Authority’s quotes >to treat an additional 500,000 gallons per day of wastes at a >cost of over $8,000,000.00 utilizing the land application >process. > > Upon securing prices for ultra filtration, which allows >purification of the most questionable water to drinking water >cleaner that we presently use, the price for processing >1,000,000 gallons per day is only $2,800,000.00, a saving of >over 60% and requires no space for land application or other >expensive construction due to the fact this equipment is >modular. Add another unit as time goes on or sell off units >that are no longer needed. UF systems are not an expensive >static facility such as a reservoir and treatment plant or a >sewerage plant. > >The product we labeled as waste now becomes an asset as this >system filters to one micron compared to the best we have now >at only three microns and the water can be sold, piped directly >back into the drinking water system relieving the burden on >lakes, streams and existing reservoirs. One micron will remove >bacteria, virus and intestinal parasites where the present >systems will not reducing the need for chemical treatments. > > Legislatively moving the State into this conservation mode >renders a viable alternative and the investment vs. the return >is phenomenal. It virtually costs nothing and insures >adequate, clean water for Georgia citizens, business and >industry. > > In order to bring this new technology on line with confidence >in a timely fashion, we can use other major systems around the >world as models for our need for going from the worst to the >best. The City of London, England has been on the >ultra-filtration equipment now for several years and recycles their water seven times. > >This legislation for conservation will save the people of the >State of Georgia billions of dollars in the near term and >assure more, cleaner, purer water for us as well as make peace >with our neighbors in Alabama and Florida. > >The primary reason water conservation is not of interest to >planners at the present time is due solely to the fact the >engineers and consultants who make large sums of money on >reservoir projects have sold a number of the counties and >municipalities on the fact they can ‘make a profit’ on >reservoirs. At today’s prices of construction, mitigation, and >debt service, there is no way to pay for a reservoir with >returns from water sales unless bills are increased to a >magnitude of +10. An example would be if a user’s bill is >presently $30.00 per month it would be increased to nearly >$300.00 per month. > >Additionally, reservoirs in Georgia are not about water but >about development corridors for the insiders who purchase the >property for about $5000. per acre and then sell waterfront lots for $150,000. per acre. >II. Production of Drinking Water Supplies/Sewerage Disposal > > In order to provide safe, economical drinking water and to >bring Georgia into a leadership role, the processes of handling >drinking water supplies and sewerage are going to have to >change. For our State, time is of the essence. > > Modernization in this case actually means more net income and >less investment. Engineers in this country are a bit wary of >this new technology due to the fact is doesn’t require large >static facilities be designed and built and for that reason it >will not be the ‘process of choice’ for years to come by the >engineering community unless it is mandated. There is less >work involved and less revenue for the engineering community. > > In consideration of our terrorism status levels in terms of >chemical poisons or radioactive contamination by terrorists, >this new technology also offers many advantages over >reservoirs. The water is within a loop and not susceptible to >contamination as in the static water in a reservoir. Further, >since make-up water comes from streams that are always moving, >any contaminants would be washed away in the stream flow almost >immediately. > > In addition to the removal of lumpy and chemical matter from >the water supply, there are additional technologies to provide >a method for not using the rinse water from the membranes to >re-enter the waterways. These new adjunctive technologies can >produce heretofore-unknown revenues and ultimately eliminate >the need for landfills. An example is the pyrolis device being >installed at the University of Georgia Ag School for the >disposal of livestock wastes. > > The livestock industry is presently burdened with the disposal >of their wastes as mandated by the USEPA. Costs have risen for >the consumer due to the fact that the wastes can no longer be >placed in containment ponds. These ponds were the accepted >technology, but now they are draining animal wastes into our >precious groundwater. These producers now have to dispose of >their wastes in approved landfills with costs ranging up to $35 >a ton for tipping fees. > > Bankers worldwide are desirous of purchasing ‘carbon credits’ >from these machines to broker under the World Carbon Credit >program, which works much like wetlands mitigation in this >county. Even though the USA opted out of the program the other >world countries are now in an enforcement mode and the need for >these credits is growing. > > Polluters worldwide can buy these saved credits….pollution >that would have gone into the earth or into the atmosphere and >save billions in fines. > > Additionally, with the newer plasma arc equipment there are >several sources of revenue. 1/ Tipping fees from other sources >of wastes. 2/ The Carbon Credits. 3/ Production of electricity >from the waste heat (around 3700 f.). 4/ Elements may be >volatilized from the residue at the desired temperatures and >sold (#5 crude oil from plastic and any other element which has >value, for example phosphates for fertilizer). > > This equipment breaks down the harmful chemical compounds, the >ones poisoning our environment, into their original elemental >atomic structure and be sold or put back into the ground as >they were when originally mined. The other advantage to this >equipment is that it ‘burns’ these residues in the absence of >oxygen so there are no airborne contaminants. > > Georgia has a proliferation of scientists and researchers who >have been involved in these technologies for over 30 years and >this legislation will offer business opportunities that are >predicted to ultimately grow into the largest industry in the >world within the next several years. > >Due to this existing cadre of experience, Environmental >Sciences in Georgia could provide hundreds of thousands of jobs >in the design, engineering, manufacturing, installation, sales, >and service of this equipment worldwide. We are on the >threshold of an opportunity for Georgia never before seen by >any industry in the history of the world. > > The first known pyrolisis device was built in Cordele, Georgia >in the early seventies under a grant from the Carter >Administration. Some of these scientists are still involved >and are installing the equipment at the University of Georgia >at the present time. > >Georgia’s water problems are over, we just don’t know it yet. > > >III. Fluoride > > > The constant introduction of fluoride compounds into the water >presents dangers to humans and wildlife. Fluoride is a highly >toxic substance, probably second only to arsenic, and we would >not knowingly introduce arsenic into our water. > > There is enough fluoride in a travel size tube of toothpaste >to kill a child. Safe dosages are not controlled as this >chemical is introduced into many different substances and the >amounts consumed are totally arbitrary. > > Fluoride is a by product of the aluminum industry and only 4% >of the world’s nations will allow it to be introduced into >public water supplies. > > Fluoride compounds will soon contaminate our ground water and >create yet unknown problems. The known problem is that it does >NOT contribute to the prevention of tooth disease. Actually >there is a condition known as fluorosis whereby the consumption >of these chemicals causes dental disease. > > Most European Nations’ testing programs indicate that actually >children who do NOT receive fluoride have LESS dental diseases >than those who do. These tests are most reliable from Europe >where many countries will not allow these compounds to be >introduced into their public water supplies. There have never >been any tests done in the United States nor elsewhere which >conclude fluoride is a useful additive. > > The first use of these compounds, as documented in the >appendices attached hereto, was by the Axis powers to make >their prisoners “stupefied” and the civilian population more >submissive to control. These fluoride compounds were initially >developed for the Axis powers as the basis for the most toxic >poison gasses released on the battlefields during WWI and WWII. > > Additionally, the company that developed these compounds for >the Axis powers, I. G. Farben, is and was a partner with >Standard Oil, now Exxon and Chevron, and Dupont. Another >company owned by the above named principals formed during the >war yeas to deter their conglomerate detection is Colgate. > > The family who owns the petroleum company also created ALCOA, >or Aluminum Company of America. This company produces millions >of tons of toxic wastes in the form of fluoride compounds >during the processing of aluminum. These wastes are difficult >and expensive to dispose of. > > So, you have to ask yourself the question, have we been turned >into human toxic waste dumps for fluoride or are there other >reasons the chemicals are introduced into our water supply? > > What we do know now, as we knew then, is that this chemical >causes Central Nervous System disorders. It was also a problem >during the Manhattan Project where large quantities of fluorine >were required in the production of the first Atomic Bomb. >Several dozen workers were accidentally exposed to fluorine and >after recovering from their initial symptoms were, shortly >after exposure, terminated due to their inability to >concentrate. There was a plan to follow these workers’ health >digression but the program soon lost funding early on. > > The greatest need for the removal of fluoride compounds from >the water supplies is that we now know it causes Attention >Deficit Disorders in our children. This condition, if >tolerated, will affect our educational system on a larger and >larger scale, rendering children not to be able to concentrate >and to learn. > >There is also evidence that it may be the trigger for >Alzheimer’s disease since it is known to affect the central >nervous system (CNS) along with its daughter in the process, >aluminum. Since it is used in the processing of aluminum, upon >contact, it begins to break down the aluminum and makes it more >absorbable into the human body and ultimately concentrating in >the central nervous system. > >These companies have taken a substance very difficult to >dispose of and figured out how to sell it to us. > >Much data is attached and you can review it with the >understanding we have the greatest opportunity ever to >eliminate this risk and unnecessary expense to the citizens of >Georgia due to the fact our present Governor offers heartfelt >desires to effectively educate our children. Elimination of >fluoride compounds from our public water supply would be a >giant step in the process to move us forward in our most >important endeavor. > >The burden on our entitlement programs to supply medications to >counter the effects of fluoride on these children in the >schools is even more reason to eliminate fluoride from being >introduced into our public water systems. >IV. Ethylene Glycols > > Ethylene Glycol is a compound used to prevent automobile >cooling systems from freezing and increases the boiling >temperature of the water in the system to prevent boil over. >It is extremely toxic. > > This chemical is in every vehicle in quantities ranging from >two gallons to ten gallons. > > The migration of this chemical into our waterways is obvious >from boil over in operating vehicles to those millions of >automobiles sitting in junkyards throughout our state. > > It is also an insidious health risk. Anyone who has smelled >that sweet odor when an automobile overheated has been exposed >to the possibility of future liver or kidney damage. > > There is a simple solution to these problems. Propylene >Glycol is a food preservative, costing pennies more per gallon >than Ethylene Glycol. It is much less risk to humans directly >and to the environment. All automakers have now approved >Propylene Glycol as a substitute for the more toxic Ethylene >Glycols. > > Propylene Glycol is just as effective as an anti freeze >component and is said to even be less corrosive to automobile >engines and radiators. > > The elimination of this chemical compound Ethylene Glycol from >our environment today will cure many potential maladies in >years to come and save millions of dollars spent to treat >serious diseases caused by this compound in the general >population of our State. > > > > >V. Teflon > > The recent announcement by the 3M company that no longer could >they within a “Moral and ethical corporate structure continue >the manufacture of Teflon” has sparked its patent owner Dupont >to seek other uses for their ‘non stick’ product around the >household. > > Clorox has recently announced they will begin putting Teflon >into their bleach products in order to “Make surfaces stay >cleaner longer.” > > The addition of this chemical into our waterways on a daily >basis by millions of Georgians will create a toxic condition of >unknown consequence and magnitude. There is also concern it >may severely affect water purification equipment by coating the >surfaces of the filtration portion of the treatment systems and >allowing particles to slip through which were previously >blocked. > > There is today an ongoing emergency investigation by the USEPA >into the practices and manipulated data distributed by the >manufacturers of the actual known dangers of the product. > > People who cook with Teflon have had pet birds die due to the >(known) lower temperature than advertised outgassing of the >toxins in the cookware plated with Teflon. > >Plant workers who manufactured the non-stick product have been >affected with much higher than the normal population diseases, >some leading to early deaths. This prompted the 3M decision. > >VI. Communicable Diseases > >Doctors throughout the world are in agreement communicable >disease rates go down when children are not in school. The >exposures to these diseases through contact with those infected >increases the risk of contamination and the onset of many types >of communicable diseases. > > The effect of these diseases goes beyond the illness and >suffering of individuals who are directly affected. Absentee >rates from the workplace, school attendance, and increased >costs to the entitlement programs are just a few examples. > > Technological advances offer us the opportunity to be able to >dramatically reduce these diseases by the use of simple, >inexpensive devices that are easy to operate and require >minimal investment. An average unit designed to rid public >restrooms of bacteria, virus, spores, and mold can cost as >little as $40.00 > > These same devices can be used in schools, overnight, to also >rid them of the most contagious risks. The equipment produces >a spark, called a corona, much the same as a lightning bolt. >This process is known as Mother Nature’s way of cleaning the >air. This electrical charge causes the nucleus of Oxygen in >the air to attract an additional e > >EXECUTIVE SUMMARY > >State of Georgia House of Representatives >Environmental Committee Report >January 2004 Session > >List of demonstrated priorities: >1. Water Conservation >2. Production of Drinking Water Supplies/Sewerage Disposal >3. Fluoride >4. Ethylene Glycols >5. Teflon >6. Communicable Diseases >7. Transportation, Air Pollution, and the Automobile > > >I. Water Conservation > > > Water conservation in Georgia has never been a priority even >though it is the least expensive way to move the State into the >future without burdening the taxpayers/ratepayers with more >expensive treatment plants and destructive reservoir projects. > > As an example, an average reservoir designed to produce 10 MGD >can cost up to $100 million dollars. The need for such >facilities, designed to serve say 100,000 users, can be >eliminated by low flow showerheads. The math is simple. >Multiply 100,000 users X a 10 minute shower X 8 gallons per >minute (the normal shower head delivery now in use) and you get >eight million gallons per day, X 25% of the people who take two >showers per day and you have 12 MGD. > > The savings to go to a low flow shower head will produce a >daily savings of 8 million gallons per day. The good news is >if you donีt create a new 8 MGD per day of wastewater per >100,000 users you donีt have to handle it on the back end as >sewerage. > >Low flow showerheads are priced from $2.00 to around $10.00 >each. > > The destructive nature of reservoirs, and lack of conservation >measures, is outlined in many scientific studies and is known >here in Georgia in many aspects not the least of which is the >death of most all the marine hatch for two years from the salt >marshes in the Coastal Region of the State. > >Even the crab population is almost non-existent on the Georgia >Coast due to the lack of conservation measures and construction >of reservoirs in the State. A normal reservoir designed to >produce 10 MGD will lose around 2/3 of that amount daily to >evaporation. Up to 6 MGD, which is never used and does not >make its historical journey to the marshes and ultimately to the sea. > > The salt levels of Georgiaีs marshes have increased to such >levels they have lost their ability to support ocean going sea >creatures as they hatch. The encroachment of salt water into >the rivers and streams due to the low flows of fresh water have >created a situation which could envelope Georgia into an >International crisis because this near 200 mile long coastal >region is considered by some biologists and professional >fishermen to be the most valuable estuary in the entire >Atlantic Ocean. > > David Waller, recently retired chief of the GADNR wildlife and >fisheries division, has been quoted as saying that you can now >drive down I-95 and see the line of demarcation of the salt >water moving upstream into the rivers and creeks. > > The new technologies, specifically but not limited to าUltra >Filtrationำ as developed years ago by Saudi Arabia, available >to us can provide purer drinking water at much less costs than >the previous systems and eliminate the need for reservoirs by >using the recycle techniques and small amounts of make up water >from existing lakes and streams. (There are already 68,000 >ponds, lakes and reservoirs in Georgia) As compared to >reservoir costs which continue to spiral, a 10 MGD ultra >filtration system is priced under $25 million. > >In Monroe, Georgia, an ultra filtration system is up and >running with the performance and production exceeding their >expectations. Many persons are visiting this plant, including >officials from the U. S. Government and the visitors are so >numerous they now have to schedule tours of their new facility. > > A recent example of this equipment on the sewerage treatment >side is the Newton County Water and Sewerage Authorityีs quotes >to treat an additional 500,000 gallons per day of wastes at a >cost of over $8,000,000.00 utilizing the land application >process. > > Upon securing prices for ultra filtration, which allows >purification of the most questionable water to drinking water >cleaner that we presently use, the price for processing >1,000,000 gallons per day is only $2,800,000.00, a saving of >over 60% and requires no space for land application or other >expensive construction due to the fact this equipment is >modular. Add another unit as time goes on or sell off units >that are no longer needed. UF systems are not an expensive >static facility such as a reservoir and treatment plant or a >sewerage plant. > >The product we labeled as waste now becomes an asset as this >system filters to one micron compared to the best we have now >at only three microns and the water can be sold, piped directly >back into the drinking water system relieving the burden on >lakes, streams and existing reservoirs. One micron will remove >bacteria, virus and intestinal parasites where the present >systems will not reducing the need for chemical treatments. > >As an example, the City of Atlantaีs proposed fix is estimated >to cost $3.2 Billion dollars. If you take the bond fees, the >interest for 20 years and divide that total by the number of >residences on the City system you come up with $3750.00 per >year for 20 years just to repay the bond, and then you still >have to pay for water in addition to that. Not many people can >add an additional $300.00 per month to their budgets for the >next 240 months. > >With conservation, the City of Atlantaีs sewerage system will >be emptied by around 300 million gallons per day, which will >result in fewer overflows. And with ultra filtration, the two >most troublesome basins can be fitted, onsite, with this >modular equipment as needed and turn the CSO into revenue in >the form of clean drinking water thereby costing the City >nothing to begin a real time program today to eliminate many of >the problems. > >Some repairs of course will need to be made, but a legislated >conservation plan along with ultra filtration is an overnight >fix for a problem their engineers stated will take seven years >for phase one, 12 years for phase two and 20 years to complete >the project as currently designed. Atlanta will be immersed in >chemical and waste sludge by then. These solutions offer >instant relief and at almost NO cost to the City of Atlanta >and/or the State of Georgia. > >The offer by Governor Perdue for $500 million is ONLY TEN >PERCENT of the half billion that will be needed/spent by the >City if they go with their existing plan. The proposed 40% >increase in water rates by the City will not even pay the >interest on the bonds. > > Legislatively moving the State into this conservation mode >renders a viable alternative and the investment vs. the return >is phenomenal. It virtually costs nothing and insures >adequate, clean water for Georgia citizens, business and >industry. > > In order to bring this new technology on line with confidence >in a timely fashion, we can use other major systems around the >world as models for our need for going from the worst to the >best. The City of London, England has been on the >ultra-filtration equipment now for several years and recycles their water seven times. > >This legislation for conservation will save the people of the >State of Georgia billions of dollars in the near term and >assure more, cleaner, purer water for us as well as make peace >with our neighbors in Alabama and Florida. > >The primary reason water conservation is not of interest to >planners at the present time is due solely to the fact the >engineers and consultants who make large sums of money on >reservoir projects have sold a number of the counties and >municipalities on the fact they can ิmake a profitี on >reservoirs. At todayีs prices of construction, mitigation, and >debt service, there is no way to pay for a reservoir with >returns from water sales unless bills are increased to a >magnitude of +10. An example would be if a userีs bill is >presently $30.00 per month it would be increased to nearly >$300.00 per month. > >Additionally, reservoirs in Georgia are not about water but >about development corridors for the insiders who purchase the >property for about $5000. per acre and then sell waterfront lots for $150,000. per acre. >II. Production of Drinking Water Supplies/Sewerage Disposal > > In order to provide safe, economical drinking water and to >bring Georgia into a leadership role, the processes of handling >drinking water supplies and sewerage are going to have to >change. For our State, time is of the essence. > > Modernization in this case actually means more net income and >less investment. Engineers in this country are a bit wary of >this new technology due to the fact is doesnีt require large >static facilities be designed and built and for that reason it >will not be the ิprocess of choiceี for years to come by the >engineering community unless it is mandated. There is less >work involved and less revenue for the engineering community. > > In consideration of our terrorism status levels in terms of >chemical poisons or radioactive contamination by terrorists, >this new technology also offers many advantages over >reservoirs. The water is within a loop and not susceptible to >contamination as in the static water in a reservoir. Further, >since make-up water comes from streams that are always moving, >any contaminants would be washed away in the stream flow almost >immediately. > > In addition to the removal of lumpy and chemical matter from >the water supply, there are additional technologies to provide >a method for not using the rinse water from the membranes to >re-enter the waterways. These new adjunctive technologies can >produce heretofore-unknown revenues and ultimately eliminate >the need for landfills. An example is the pyrolis device being >installed at the University of Georgia Ag School for the >disposal of livestock wastes. > > The livestock industry is presently burdened with the disposal >of their wastes as mandated by the USEPA. Costs have risen for >the consumer due to the fact that the wastes can no longer be >placed in containment ponds. These ponds were the accepted >technology, but now they are draining animal wastes into our >precious groundwater. These producers now have to dispose of >their wastes in approved landfills with costs ranging up to $35 >a ton for tipping fees. > > Bankers worldwide are desirous of purchasing ิcarbon creditsี >from these machines to broker under the World Carbon Credit >program, which works much like wetlands mitigation in this >county. Even though the USA opted out of the program the other >world countries are now in an enforcement mode and the need for >these credits is growing. > > Polluters worldwide can buy these saved creditsษ.pollution >that would have gone into the earth or into the atmosphere and >save billions in fines. > > Additionally, with the newer plasma arc equipment there are >several sources of revenue. 1/ Tipping fees from other sources >of wastes. 2/ The Carbon Credits. 3/ Production of electricity >from the waste heat (around 3700 f.). 4/ Elements may be >volatilized from the residue at the desired temperatures and >sold (#5 crude oil from plastic and any other element which has >value, for example phosphates for fertilizer). > > This equipment breaks down the harmful chemical compounds, the >ones poisoning our environment, into their original elemental >atomic structure and be sold or put back into the ground as >they were when originally mined. The other advantage to this >equipment is that it ิburnsี these residues in the absence of >oxygen so there are no airborne contaminants. > > Georgia has a proliferation of scientists and researchers who >have been involved in these technologies for over 30 years and >this legislation will offer business opportunities that are >predicted to ultimately grow into the largest industry in the >world within the next several years. > >Due to this existing cadre of experience, Environmental >Sciences in Georgia could provide hundreds of thousands of jobs >in the design, engineering, manufacturing, installation, sales, >and service of this equipment worldwide. We are on the >threshold of an opportunity for Georgia never before seen by >any industry in the history of the world. > > The first known pyrolisis device was built in Cordele, Georgia >in the early seventies under a grant from the Carter >Administration. Some of these scientists are still involved >and are installing the equipment at the University of Georgia >at the present time. > >Georgiaีs water problems are over, we just donีt know it yet. > > >III. Fluoride > > > The constant introduction of fluoride compounds into the water >presents dangers to humans and wildlife. Fluoride is a highly >toxic substance, probably second only to arsenic, and we would >not knowingly introduce arsenic into our water. > > There is enough fluoride in a travel size tube of toothpaste >to kill a child. Safe dosages are not controlled as this >chemical is introduced into many different substances and the >amounts consumed are totally arbitrary. > > Fluoride is a by product of the aluminum industry and only 4% >of the worldีs nations will allow it to be introduced into >public water supplies. > > Fluoride compounds will soon contaminate our ground water and >create yet unknown problems. The known problem is that it does >NOT contribute to the prevention of tooth disease. Actually >there is a condition known as fluorosis whereby the consumption >of these chemicals causes dental disease. > > Most European Nationsี testing programs indicate that actually >children who do NOT receive fluoride have LESS dental diseases >than those who do. These tests are most reliable from Europe >where many countries will not allow these compounds to be >introduced into their public water supplies. There have never >been any tests done in the United States nor elsewhere which >conclude fluoride is a useful additive. > > The first use of these compounds, as documented in the >appendices attached hereto, was by the Axis powers to make >their prisoners าstupefiedำ and the civilian population more >submissive to control. These fluoride compounds were initially >developed for the Axis powers as the basis for the most toxic >poison gasses released on the battlefields during WWI and WWII. > > Additionally, the company that developed these compounds for >the Axis powers, I. G. Farben, is and was a partner with >Standard Oil, now Exxon and Chevron, and Dupont. Another >company owned by the above named principals formed during the >war yeas to deter their conglomerate detection is Colgate. > > The family who owns the petroleum company also created ALCOA, >or Aluminum Company of America. This company produces millions >of tons of toxic wastes in the form of fluoride compounds >during the processing of aluminum. These wastes are difficult >and expensive to dispose of. > > So, you have to ask yourself the question, have we been turned >into human toxic waste dumps for fluoride or are there other >reasons the chemicals are introduced into our water supply? > > What we do know now, as we knew then, is that this chemical >causes Central Nervous System disorders. It was also a problem >during the Manhattan Project where large quantities of fluorine >were required in the production of the first Atomic Bomb. >Several dozen workers were accidentally exposed to fluorine and >after recovering from their initial symptoms were, shortly >after exposure, terminated due to their inability to >concentrate. There was a plan to follow these workersี health >digression but the program soon lost funding early on. > > The greatest need for the removal of fluoride compounds from >the water supplies is that we now know it causes Attention >Deficit Disorders in our children. This condition, if >tolerated, will affect our educational system on a larger and >larger scale, rendering children not to be able to concentrate >and to learn. > >There is also evidence that it may be the trigger for >Alzheimerีs disease since it is known to affect the central >nervous system (CNS) along with its daughter in the process, >aluminum. Since it is used in the processing of aluminum, upon >contact, it begins to break down the aluminum and makes it more >absorbable into the human body and ultimately concentrating in >the central nervous system. > >These companies have taken a substance very difficult to >dispose of and figured out how to sell it to us. > >Much data is attached and you can review it with the >understanding we have the greatest opportunity ever to >eliminate this risk and unnecessary expense to the citizens of >Georgia due to the fact our present Governor offers heartfelt >desires to effectively educate our children. Elimination of >fluoride compounds from our public water supply would be a >giant step in the process to move us forward in our most >important endeavor. > >The burden on our entitlement programs to supply medications to >counter the effects of fluoride on these children in the >schools is even more reason to eliminate fluoride from being >introduced into our public water systems. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >IV. Ethylene Glycols > > Ethylene Glycol is a compound used to prevent automobile >cooling systems from freezing and increases the boiling >temperature of the water in the system to prevent boil over. >It is extremely toxic. > > This chemical is in every vehicle in quantities ranging from >two gallons to ten gallons. > > The migration of this chemical into our waterways is obvious >from boil over in operating vehicles to those millions of >automobiles sitting in junkyards throughout our state. > > It is also an insidious health risk. Anyone who has smelled >that sweet odor when an automobile overheated has been exposed >to the possibility of future liver or kidney damage. > > There is a simple solution to these problems. Propylene >Glycol is a food preservative, costing pennies more per gallon >than Ethylene Glycol. It is much less risk to humans directly >and to the environment. All automakers have now approved >Propylene Glycol as a substitute for the more toxic Ethylene >Glycols. > > Propylene Glycol is just as effective as an anti freeze >component and is said to even be less corrosive to automobile >engines and radiators. > > The elimination of this chemical compound Ethylene Glycol from >our environment today will cure many potential maladies in >years to come and save millions of dollars spent to treat >serious diseases caused by this compound in the general >population of our State. > > > > > > > > > > >V. Teflon > > The recent announcement by the 3M company that no longer could >they within a าMoral and ethical corporate structure continue >the manufacture of Teflonำ has sparked its patent owner Dupont >to seek other uses for their ิnon stickี product around the >household. > > Clorox has recently announced they will begin putting Teflon >into their bleach products in order to าMake surfaces stay >cleaner longer.ำ > > The addition of this chemical into our waterways on a daily >basis by millions of Georgians will create a toxic condition of >unknown consequence and magnitude. There is also concern it >may severely affect water purification equipment by coating the >surfaces of the filtration portion of the treatment systems and >allowing particles to slip through which were previously >blocked. > > There is today an ongoing emergency investigation by the USEPA >into the practices and manipulated data distributed by the >manufacturers of the actual known dangers of the product. > > People who cook with Teflon have had pet birds die due to the >(known) lower temperature than advertised outgassing of the >toxins in the cookware plated with Teflon. > >Plant workers who manufactured the non-stick product have been >affected with much higher than the normal population diseases, >some leading to early deaths. This prompted the 3M decision. > > > > > > > > > > > > >VI. Communicable Diseases > >Doctors throughout the world are in agreement communicable >disease rates go down when children are not in school. The >exposures to these diseases through contact with those infected >increases the risk of contamination and the onset of many types >of communicable diseases. > > The effect of these diseases goes beyond the illness and >suffering of individuals who are directly affected. Absentee >rates from the workplace, school attendance, and increased >costs to the entitlement programs are just a few examples. > > Technological advances offer us the opportunity to be able to >dramatically reduce these diseases by the use of simple, >inexpensive devices that are easy to operate and require >minimal investment. An average unit designed to rid public >restrooms of bacteria, virus, spores, and mold can cost as >little as $40.00 > > These same devices can be used in schools, overnight, to also >rid them of the most contagious risks. The equipment produces >a spark, called a corona, much the same as a lightning bolt. >This process is known as Mother Natureีs way of cleaning the >air. This electrical charge causes the nucleus of Oxygen in >the air to attract an additional electron into the outer ring >thereby changing the Oxygen (O2) into O3. This unstable >element is much like dragging a magnet through a pile of nails >and seeing that very last one just hanging on. > > The result is that upon contact, due to this instability, with >any other matter, dust, spores, virus, bacteria, or mold, >reverts the O3 back to its original structure and in doing so >reacts in a manner that destroys the harmful substance thorough >a sub-atomic reaction. > > The gas produced by the corona effect completely dissipates >within 30 minutes or sooner depending on the severity of the >airborne particulate in the air. Harmful effects of >overexposure to the gas are eliminated within that time and we >all breathe the าclean smelling gasำ anytime we are near an >electrical storm or any other producer of a corona effect >including electric motors and other electrical devices which >generate any type of a spark. > > Low level, controlled, short exposure to constant production >of this gas is no more harmful that being outside during a >thunderstorm. > > In public restrooms, the low level output of the equipment >would be in operation constantly. In schools the equipment >would only operate when the buildings are vacant. > > The savings in treatment costs of communicable disease both to >individuals and to the entitlement programs in Georgia could be >reduced by hundreds of millions of dollars and an initial >experimental program in schools with a baseline of absenteeism >already documented can quantify a true percentage of the >reduction of infections and illness. > > The best way to work through our budget problems is simply not >to spend the money in the first place and rather than searching >for more funds to throw at the symptoms, eliminate the >problems. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >VII. Transportation, Air Pollution and the Automobile > > > Historically, the construction of new highways constitutes >development corridors and encourages the sprawl that has now >been established as a problem to be dealt with by whatever >means available. > > The าNorthern Arcำ as proposed by the last Administration was >estimated to cost $2.3 billion dollars and was in no way about >moving people but to create another development corridor. > > The air pollution problem in and around the City of Atlanta >must be dealt with in order to comply with continuing pressure >from the USEPA and for the protection of the health of our >citizens. > > A survey (attached) done by professionals having no financial >interests nor political interests in the State of Georgia has >shown, extrapolated, that the cost of a light rail system that >would follow the original 325 mile designed าOuter Perimeterำ >can be implemented for $800 million dollars. > >าMaglevำ and other high speed systems for moving people within >this circumference are not something that would be necessary >due the extreme additional costs and there is no need for >speeds in excess of 110 MPH for this purpose. > >A light rail system around the 325 mile area, intersected by a >north, south, east, and west connector to the downtown >infrastructure would not promote sprawl nor would it constitute >a highway of unreasonable expense, nor would it promote sprawl >around the outer perimeter. > >The perimeter (outer) rail would have stops at major highway >cross sections and simple, shelter terminals with ticketing and >bathroom facilities. The four connectors to downtown Atlanta >would be non-stop. > >Since the concept of funding for Governor Barnes transportation >adjunct may prove to be unconstitutional due to the Georgia >Constitutionีs plain language that าษno authority may be funded >by property tax dollars,ำ the solution is to install toll >facilities just outside I-285 to pay for this new rail system. > >Generally, in travels around the Country, we all know there are >such toll roads on Interstate Highways and with enough booths >there is no significant traffic delay. > > The toll costs could also encourage rider ship of the rail >system with increases to promote its use if necessary. The >ultimate elixir, although extreme, would be the purchase of >downtown parking lots by the State and their subsequent closure. > > The biggest advantage of this system is that, due to the large >population density within the area of service, the rail could >serve almost FIFTY PERCENT of the entire population of the >State of Georgia. > >This solution promotes all of the interests necessary to >improve transportation needs, offers a workable and efficient >transportation alternative at a more reasonable cost, and will >help to assure better air quality for Georgians. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >State of Georgia House of Representatives >Environmental Committee Report >January 2004 > >OUTLINE OF THE PROPOSED LEGISLATION > > >I. CONSERVATION > >Every water distributor in the State of Georgia, whether public >or private, shall comply with the mandates of this Section in >regards to conservation. > >Water distributors shall, within 6 months of the passage of >this legislation, send notifications printed on the statements >sent to all users that shall read, > > าYou have three months to return the original purchase >receipt, along with your water/sewerage statement stub and >payment, for the total number of shower heads necessary to >replace your existing shower heads with a low flow device. A >LOW FLOW DEVICE is defined as a shower head that uses 2gpm or >less.ำ > > This notification shall appear on each statement for a >period of three months. > >In the event any water user provides proof of income below the >currently published poverty level, the water distributor shall >be responsible for furnishing, and installing if necessary, the >low flow shower head(s) to all persons who wish to require the >distributor to do so provided they are within the required low >income definition. > >After the initial three month period, the water distributor >shall be required to monitor consumption of each user and in >the event any user does not show a decrease in consumption, the >statement will include a note that shall read, > >าIn response to the State mandated low flow shower head >regulations, your consumption levels have not decreased. >Please call our office within 90 days if you need assistance >with compliance.ำ > >From that point the water distributor shall develop a local >program to assure local compliance. Such measures may include, >(1) Inspection of the non-conforming entity; (2) Installation >of the device in the non conforming entity; (3) Fines, not to >exceed $50.00 per month for residential non compliance; (4, a) >Fines for commercial or industrial non compliance are not to >exceed $500.00 per month. > >The State of Georgia may impose fines as necessary to assure >compliance by water distributors. > > >II. PRODUCTION OF WATER SUPPLIES / SEWERAGE DISPOSAL > >าRECYCLE PROGRAMำ, for purposes of this section, is defined as >a system which takes wastewater and filters it to the purity >level of one micron for the return directly back into the drinking water supply or stream. > >าPERCENTAGEำ, for the purposes of this section, is defined as >the percentage of total design capacity whether for sewerage >recycle or new drinking water facilities. > >Any improvement, expansion, repair, or changes to systems for >production of drinking water or sewerage treatment plants shall >include at least a mandatory 25% recycle program. > >Any new plant facilities built after the imposition of this >section shall be designed with at least a 75% recycle program. >This section is retroactive to any proposed facilities for >drinking water production already approved. > >Since this recycle program eliminates the need for reservoirs, >any new proposal for approval of a reservoir must be evaluated >by the GAEPD, furnishing their own science, and with the need >and lack of ability of the distributor to comply with this >section, and be fully documented by GAEPD as to why recycle >statutes cannot be adhered to. > >Any request for reservoir construction within the State of >Georgia must be approved by a majority vote of the GADNR Board >and submitted to the Office of Governor for final adoption >prior to any correspondence for ิneedี being delivered to other >regulatory agencies. > >Recycle systems eliminate the requirement for storage capacity. > Mandates for a 7Q10 compliance will not be required when >stream flow or lake outtakes are sufficient to be used for make >up water in recycle systems. > > >III. FLOURIDE > >All products being added to water systems in the State of >Georgia containing fluoride components will be eliminated >within six months of the adoption of this Code Section. > > >IV. ETHYLENE GLYCOLS > >All products used for anti freeze components in automobiles >containing ethylene glycol in the State of Georgia will no >longer be sold. Such products as Propylene Glycol, a food >preservative with the same anti freeze characteristics and >minimum toxicity, will be used. > >No new automobiles sold in the State of Georgia will contain >Ethylene Glycol. > > >V. TEFLON > >Cleaning products available for household use, such as >bleaches, containing Teflon, shall not be used nor be available >for sale in the State of Georgia within six months of the >adoption of this Code Section. > > > >VI. COMMUNICABLE DISEASES > >Every public restroom and school, college, university, and >child nursery within the State of Georgia will be equipped, >within two years of the passage of this statute, with equipment >known to destroy virus, bacteria, spores, and mold agents. >Devices producing O3 within the safe levels as prescribed by >the USEPA and assured by the manufacturer will be required. > >These systems in schools, colleges, universities and child >nurseries shall be operated during the early morning hours only >when no students are in the buildings. In dorms, only the >restrooms will be required to be sanitized with said equipment. > >Responsibility of safe levels of production and operation of >said equipment shall be the responsibility of the >Administration and will be assured by the manufacturer of said >devices in writing. > > >VII. TRANSPORTATION, AIR POLLUTION, AND THE AUTOMOBILE > >A RESOLUTION: > > Within six (6) months of the passage of this resolution, the >appropriate Departments, working in concert, will prepare a >summary of the cost, time to complete, and any other >documentation necessary to fully outline a circumferential rail >system with north, south, east and west connecting lines to the >downtown infrastructure including the potential revenue from >tolls placed just outside I-285 on all inbound lanes. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >I. WATER CONSERVATION > > > > > > Showerhead Exchange Program A simple and cost cost-effective >way for the average residential water customer to save money on >their water and power bill is by installing high-efficiency >showerheads. This unique program allows water customers to >exchange their old water-wasting showerheads for new, >high-efficiency, pulsating-massage models for free. Cocoa >water customers can make exchanges at the Utilities >Administration building located at 600 School Street. This >offer is good only to those replacing original high water use >showerheads (pre-1994). Also, replacement of an existing >low-flow showerhead does not qualify. >THE EARTH๏ Massage Showerheadค Saves up to 25% More Water & >Energy ค Multiple Flow Setting – from Fine to Coarse >ค Corrosion Resistant ค Installs Easily ค 10-year Guarantee For >more information about this program, contact Cocoaีs Water >Conservation Officer at 639-7602. >Last updated > > > > >———————————————————————— > > > > >Regional reservoirs could be harmful >Environment >By Lee Shearer >lshearer@onlineathaens.com > The state is reviving its plan to build a series of regional >water reservoirs in north Georgia, but the public and local >government officials need to realize that reservoirs carry a >hefty environmental price tag, according to the new coordinator of the program. > ”We’re talking about potential environmental destruction. >We’re talking about some serious environmental problems (when >reservoirs are built),” said Allison Keefer, regional >reservoir coordinator for the state Department of Natural Resources. > The mission of the reservoir program is to develop and >protect water and related resources to meet the current and >future needs of the state of Georgia, said Keefer. > And Keefer’s job is to get reservoirs built, she said. > The state is now developing procedures for evaluating >proposed regional reservoirs, including assessments of a >region’s future water needs, how efficiently existing water is >being used, and a reservoir’s impact on the environment. > A regional reservoir system was proposed after a drought in >the 1980s, but controversy over its environmental costs >sidelined it. But while the state program stalled, local >governments began building water supply reservoirs around the state, she said. > One example is the just-completed Bear Creek Reservoir, a >joint project of Clarke, Barrow, Jackson and Oconee counties. > In the past, the approach to water supply reservoirs has too >often been to decide to build a reservoir, then justify it >after the decision has already been made, Keefer said at a >Tuesday meeting with the University of Georgia’s River Basin Science and Policy Center. > ”I think if people can understand their long-term >self-interest lies in protecting the environment, that will >help. But until we have the knowledge of the downside of >reservoirs, that balance won’t be achieved,” she said. > How well the state achieves that balance remains to be seen, Keefer said. > ”Almost everybody likes reservoirs. I don’t think we’ve >done a very good job in the past (of educating people about the >drawbacks of reservoirs), and I don’t know how good a job we >will do in the future,” she said. > A consulting company hired by the state, CH2M Hill, is >drawing up a proposed water conservation program for the DNR, >as well as a process for evaluating proposed reservoirs. A >policy for a third question — identifying potential reservoir >sites — will come later, she said. > The company’s draft proposal will likely be released for >public comment some time near the end of July, she said. > But the new procedures will affect only the state-run >regional reservoir program. It won’t apply to reservoirs built >by local governments, such as Bear Creek. > The UGA water experts suggested some features to include in >the reservoir assessment process. > The cumulative effects of reservoirs ought to be included in >the assessment, said ecologist Bud Freeman, noting the great >water loss already caused by evaporation from the thousands of >large and small reservoirs already in existence. > Local reservoir projects also should have to pass touch standards, they suggested. > ”What I see is local governments taking the best (the most >biologically diverse) remaining streams,” said Mary Freeman, another member of the group. > >Published in the Athens Banner-Herald on Wednesday, June 12, >2002. > >———————————————————————————————– >EPA 841-B-95-002 >April, 1995 >When More Is Better >The recognition of diffuse, or nonpoint source, pollution as a >major contributor to declining water quality has spawned >another approach to improving our water resources: better water >quality through greater water quantity. >This document explains the relationship between the quantity of >water and its quality and discusses how developing water-use >efficiency programs can help states and local communities >achieve cleaner water through conserving water. >Introduction >Ch. 1 – How We Use Water In These United States >Ch. 2 – How Excessive Water Use Affects Water Quality >Ch. 3. – How to Conserve Water and Use It Effectively >Ch. 4 – Regional Approaches to Efficient Water Uses: Tales From the Trenches >Glossary and References >Introduction >Typically, nonpoint source (NPS) pollution originates from rain >and melted snow flowing over the land, which is called runoff. >As runoff contacts the land’s surface, it picks up many >pollutants in its path_sediment, oil and grease, road salt, >fertilizers, pesticides, nutrients, toxics, and other >contaminants. Runoff can also originate from irrigation water >used in agriculture and on landscapes. Many pollutants are >picked up by irrigation water as it runs off the land. >Water conservation coupled with pollutant source reduction, >such as nutrient and pesticide management, would be a >particularly effective approach to reducing the adverse effects >of all types of NPS pollution. The focus of this document, >however, is on the types and sources of NPS pollution most >commonly associated with urban uses of water. >Other types of nonpoint pollution include changes to the >natural flow of water in stream channels or wetlands. Changes >to the natural flow of water in streams or wetlands result in >habitat destruction for fish and wildlife. Placing dams across >our rivers and streams can permanently alter the >characteristics of upstream and downstream areas by flooding >upstream habitats and drying downstream habitats. Failures of >onsite disposal systems (septic tanks) lead to increases in >nutrients, harmful bacteria in oyster and clam beds, and >closures of public swimming areas. Conserving water can help to >reduce some impacts from these other sources of nonpoint pollution. >Perhaps most relevant, however, besides the intrinsic benefit >of improving water quality by addressing water quantity, are >the other, economically beneficial effects of these water >quality improvements. Some of the NPS pollution problems that >can be reduced by improved water conservation include: >แ On-site disposal system failures >แ Dried-up downstream wetlands >แ Polluted runoff from overirrigation of agricultural and urban lands >แ Construction of additional dams and reservoirs and additional >water and wastewater treatment facilities >แ Surface water withdrawals that result in habitat degradation >both instream and on land adjacent to streams and lakes (riparian areas) >The many benefits of water use efficiency include cost savings >and pollution prevention even beyond nonpoint source pollution >because many pollution prevention practices and activities >result in reduced water use, which saves money. However, some >pollution prevention practices that do not reduce NPS pollution >also provide a cost savings, making these three driving forces >(water use efficiency, cost savings, and pollution prevention) >great companions. The umbrella term “water use efficiency” >actually defines a larger area of two subcategories: water >conservation_finding ways to use less wa

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s