Georgia Water Task Force Final Report

WATER CONTINGENCY PLANNING

TASK FORCE

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

21 December 2009

i

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The Task Force acknowledges the dedication of the co-chairs:

• John Brock Chairman and CEO, Coca-Cola Enterprises

• Tim Lowe CEO, Lowe Engineers

A special thanks to Technical Advisors who donated their time and resources to the Task Force effort.

• AECOM

• Arcadis

• Brown and Caldwell

• CH2M Hill

• Golder & Associates

• Jordan Jones and Goulding

• MACTEC Engineering in partnership with Tanner and Associates, Tommy Craig, Schnabel

Engineering and B&E Jackson Engineers

• Post Buckley Shue & Jernigan

• University of North Carolina, Environmental Finance Center

and

• The Boston Consulting Group (Atlanta office) for coordination of Technical Advisor Teams

and overall process facilitation

ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

1 Executive Summary ............................................................................................................................... 4

2 Introduction ............................................................................................................................................5

2.1 Background.........................................................................................................................................5

2.2 Limitations on scope of study...........................................................................................................7

3 Recommendations: supporting Policies and Actions......................................................................... 8

3.1 Policy Recommendations to pursue now ....................................................................................... 9

3.2 Policy Recommendations in case of “Contingency Plan” requirements..................................... 12

3.3 Additional policies for consideration............................................................................................. 14

4 Recommended Contingency Solutions............................................................................................... 14

4.1 Description of 2012 option portfolio .............................................................................................. 16

4.2 2015 contingency portfolio ............................................................................................................. 20

4.3 Recommended 2020 portfolio of options ...................................................................................... 21

5 Methodology .........................................................................................................................................23

5.1 Task Force solution development process ....................................................................................23

5.2 Primary’ and ‘Alternate’ 2020 portfolios ........................................................................................25

6 Summary Of Task Force Feedback .................................................................................................... 29

6.1 Summary of Task Force feedback on principles .......................................................................... 29

6.2 ‘Summary of Task Force feedback on portfolios...........................................................................30

6.3 ‘No-regret’ and ‘contingency’ options ............................................................................................ 31

6.4 Alternative views on key types of options .....................................................................................32

7 Topics Pending Further Evaluation ....................................................................................................34

7.1 Determination of downstream flow impact ..................................................................................34

7.2 Additional options requiring more detailed evaluation ..............................................................35

7.3 Regional governance model............................................................................................................38

8. Conclusion........................................................................................................................................38

DEFINITION OF KEY TERMS

APPENDIX

I. List of Task Force Members

II. Fact base: water situation, facts on usage

III. Complete set of options evaluated with rationale, cost, yield, implementation feasibility

IV. Technical assumptions used in option evaluation

V. Task Force member survey results

VI. Comments and submissions provided to Task Force

iii

144200-01 Water Contingency Planning Task

Force Report v11.doc



TABLE OF FIGURES

Page

Figure 1: Projected water shortfall in 2012 under Judge Magnuson’s ruling .............................................. 6

Figure 2: Aggressive implementation of conservation options insufficient to address 2012 gap ........... 17

Figure 3: Overall District water usage levels .............................................................................................. 18

Figure 4: List of options available by 2012.................................................................................................... 19

Figure 5: List of options in recommended 2015 portfolio......................................................................... 20

Figure 6: Indirect potable reuse infrastructure requirement..................................................................... 21

Figure 7: List of options in recommended 2020 portfolio..........................................................................22

Figure 8: Task Force solution development process...................................................................................23

Figure 9: Options key feasibility considerations ........................................................................................25

Figure 10: Defining the ‘primary’ and ‘alternate’ 2020 portfolios ..............................................................25

Figure 11: List of options in the cost optimal 2020 portfolio ..................................................................... 26

Figure 12: List of options in the ‘primary’ 2020 portfolio...........................................................................27

Figure 13: List of options in the ‘alternate’ 2020 portfolio and comparsion with ‘primary’ ................... 28

Figure 14: Assessment of ‘no-regret’ and ‘contingency’ options through TF survey results ...................32

Figure 15: Distribution of Task Force response on support for key prioritization principles................ 29

Figure 16: Level of support for key prioritization principles by various sub-groups ...............................30

4

1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The Water Contingency Planning Task Force was created to analyze the potential water shortfall in

Georgia in light of Judge Magnuson’s July 2009 ruling, and to develop a contingency plan containing a

prioritized set of recommendations on water conservation and supply options. The Task Force

evaluation reaffirms that Lake Lanier is by far the best water supply source for the metro region. If

the recommended contingency options were required instead, these options would impose

significant incremental economic costs and environmental impact the region does not currently face.

The Task Force does not foresee the ability of the metro region to meet the potential water shortfall

in 2012, when Judge Magnuson’s ruling could take effect, even with extremely aggressive mandated

conservation. Within this timeframe, no new supply options could offer significant yield. By 2015,

there is a potential contingency solution, consisting primarily of an indirect potable reuse project,

along with a set of conservation measures and isolated groundwater options. The 2015 solution

would, however, require significant upfront capital of approximately $3 billion and supply water at an

average incremental unit cost of $890 per million gallons (MG). By 2020, a broader set of more cost-

effective options exists, as reservoirs and transfers could be implemented. In that regard, the Task

Force recommends a 2020 contingency solution that considers cost efficiency, environmental impact,

and implementation feasibility criteria. This solution includes conservation measures and

groundwater options that could be available the 2015 solution, but replaces the relatively expensive

indirect reuse project with more cost effective reservoir expansions (Tussahaw Creek, Dog River), and

a new reservoir (Richland Creek). The 2020 contingency solution would require a lower upfront

capital requirement of ~$1.7B and would have an incremental unit cost of $460/MG, which is nearly

half the 2015 solution cost.

While the supply options for 2015 and 2020 are identified as contingencies, the Task Force

recommends that enhanced conservation, implemented through incentive-based programs, should

be pursued regardless of the outcome of Lake Lanier reauthorization. This program of enhanced

conservation is the basis for a set of Task Force recommendations on “no regrets” options to

implement immediately, along with a supporting set of policy considerations (detailed in Section 3.1).

There are three broad areas of additional conservation improvements that build on the Metro

Atlanta’s significant conservation progress to date, and are reflected in these recommended policies:

1. Institute mandatory data collection and reporting of key metrics to inform future planning

efforts. For instance, utilities would have to conduct standardized water loss audits.

2. Adopt higher water efficiency standards and incentive measures to increase conservation

effectiveness. (e.g., increasing incentives for fixture and soil meter retrofits.)

3. Link progress on conservation efforts to funding eligibility, low-interest loan qualifications,

and permitting applications to ensure implementation of measures.

The Contingency solutions recommended by the Task Force should only be pursued if they are

deemed to be absolutely essential, based on the outlook of tri-state negotiations, Lake Lanier

5





reauthorization efforts, and the appeal of Judge Magnuson’s order. Preference should be given to the

2020 contingency solution, if possible, and only if this action is required. In conjunction with the

2020 contingency solution, the Task Force also identified a set of policies that could support the

implementation of mandate-based conservation measures envisioned within that contingency

solution (detailed in Section 3.2), also to be considered only if necessary to the support a contingency

solution. However, the Task Force notes that the ability to implement either a 2015 or 2020 solution

in their stated timeframes would also be contingent on initiating the necessary technical studies and

permitting process swiftly, and implementation within these timeframes would not accommodate

any unforeseen delays.

2 INTRODUCTION

2.1 Background

On July 17 2009, U.S. District Judge Paul Magnuson issued a ruling holding that water supply was not

an authorized purpose of Lake Lanier. Additionally, Judge Magnuson determined that the US Army

Corps of Engineers’ (hereafter referred to as the Corps) operation of Lake Lanier for water supply

exceeded its authority under the Water Supply Act of 1958. Judge Magnuson concluded that, absent

further Congressional authorization, water supply operations at Lake Lanier must cease by mid-July

2012. That is, except for certain limited withdrawals that predate construction of the reservoir, all

withdrawals directly from Lake Lanier will be prohibited, and releases from Buford Dam to meet

downstream water needs will be severely curtailed.

In response to the ruling, the Governor outlined a 4-pronged strategy which consisted of (a)

appealing the ruling in court, (b) negotiating a mutually agreeable water allocation scheme with

Alabama and Florida, (c) pursuing Congressional reauthorization of Lake Lanier for water supply and

(d) developing a contingency plan, to be implemented if the Judge’s ruling were to take effect. The

Water Contingency Planning Task Force was created to evaluate to various options for a contingency

plan and make recommendations to the Governor.

Absent Congressional action or reversal on appeal of Judge Magnuson’s order, that order will create a

water supply shortfall for North Georgia in July 2012. The part of Judge Magnuson’s order that would

go into effect in July 2012 does not directly limit withdrawals from the river. That element of the

order, however, does enjoin the Corps’ operation of Buford Dam such that the reliable supply of

water available from the river will be severely curtailed. Although it is not currently possible to

predict with specificity how much water would actually be available for withdrawal from the river

under the operations required by the Judge’s order, the order did state that such operations in the

1970s yielded 230 Million Gallons per Day (MGD). The range of possible yields from the required

operations is wide, but 230 MGD appears to fall well within that range, and accordingly was used as

the assumed amount of available water for purposes of calculating the water supply shortfall.

6





Given this assumption, a net water shortfall was calculated to be approximately 250 MGD (on an

annual average basis) in the metro region (15 county region served by Metropolitan North Georgia

Water Planning District, hereafter referred to as Metro Water District) in 2012. This shortfall is

estimated by taking the difference between projected 2012 water demand, as published in the Metro

Water District’s Water Supply and Water Conservation Management Plan (published in May 2009,

hereafter referred to as the Metro Water Plan), and projected 2012 water supply under the scenario

that could occur should Judge Magnuson’s ruling take effect. This is illustrated graphically in Figure 1.

The projected shortfall of 250 MGD is a net shortfall across the entire metro region, subtracting from

the total shortfall the amount of estimated surplus in counties with excess water from other sources.

Relying on one possible interpretation of how the ruling would impact downstream communities, the

total shortfall for counties in deficit (while ignoring the counties with surplus) was estimated to be

approximately 280 MGD in 2012. This shortfall estimate of 280 MGD was used by the Water

Contingency Planning Task Force (hereafter referred to as the Task Force) for planning purposes, out

of conservatism. Using a similar approach and assuming that demand continued to grow as outlined

in the Metro Water Plan, the corresponding water shortfall in 2015 and 2020 were estimated to be

approximately 310 MGD and 350 MGD respectively. Clearly, the Judge’s ruling has a very significant

impact on water supply to the metro region.

Figure 1: Projected water shortfall in 2012 under Judge Magnuson’s ruling

400

600

800

1,000

1,200

2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035

Supply/Demand (AAD - MGD)

2006 permitted supply

Future demand –with plannedconservation

2035 planned permitted supply

Supply: impact of ruling

Net shortfall: ~250 MGD (AAD) or 34% of demand

Note: supply based on ruling assumes sources other than Lake Lanier and Chattahoochee River are capped at current levelsSource: Metro North GA Water Supply and Water Conservation Management Plan (May 2009); Estimated data; Figures reported in Average Annual Day – Million Gallons per Day (AAD–MGD)

Metro North Georgia Water Planning District supply and demand forecast

Baselinedemand

Note: Total shortfall (deficit counties only) ~280 MGD (AAD)

In response to this potential significant problem, the Task Force had two key objectives. First, to

develop a fact-base to educate business and community leaders on Georgia's water situation and the

implications of Judge Magnuson's ruling. Second, to define a time-driven action plan that prioritized

7





specific options and recommendations for conservation, supply enhancement, and water policy to

address the potential shortfall.

The Task Force, in order to fulfill its mission and scope, was directed by the Governor’s office to work

with a set of key operating assumptions:

• Options were to be defined assuming that Judge Magnuson’s ruling remains in effect. Thus,

interbasin transfer options could not assume use of Lake Lanier to store incremental water

supply, as withdrawals from the lake would be restricted under the ruling

• All types of options were to be considered for evaluation, without regard to legal or political

implementation challenges.

• The geographic scope to be evaluated was focused on only those areas affected by the ruling.

Specifically, the scope was to be limited to only the ACF (Apalachicola Chattahoochee Flint)

basin, with a primary focus on the metro Atlanta region as the area most severely affected

• Long-range water planning was to be outside the scope of the Task Force effort and instead

was to be addressed by the Comprehensive Statewide Water Management Plan and to be the

responsibility of existing Regional Water Planning Councils.

• Existing long-range water supply and conservation plans and underlying data were to form

the Task Force’s baseline. The potential water supply shortfall was to be defined by

incorporating already planned conservation savings. Therefore, Task Force conservation

savings were to be incremental to what is in the May 2009 Metro Water District Plan

• The Task Force was to identify the timeframe by when the potential water shortfall could be

addressed, and the means to do so, i.e., with what supporting set of options. On the basis of

the Judge’s ruling and option evaluation, three relevant time horizons emerged - 2012: the

year when withdrawals from Lake Lanier end and the Corps’ operation of Buford Dam

changes, 2015: the earliest possible timeline when potential shortfall could be addressed

(based on option availability), and 2020: timeframe by which the shortfall could be addressed

with a broad suite of potential options (including reservoir and transfers). Note that these

timelines are based on the assumption that there are no significant delays to implementation

of options (e.g., permitting, technical studies, etc), and presume that decisions to implement

are made in a timely fashion.

2.2 Limitations on scope of study

The limitations of this study should be clearly understood. A thorough analysis of the shortfall and

potential solutions will require many months, perhaps years, to complete. Given the urgency created

by Judge Magnuson’s order, however, the Governor directed the Task Force to deliver this report

within six weeks. This time frame was essential in the event that action would need to be taken in the

2010 session of the General Assembly.

Accordingly, the contents of this report should be taken as initial findings and recommendations that

will provide a basis for further study and analysis. All yield and cost estimates are preliminary and are

likely to change with further analysis. Furthermore, projects have been studied on an individual basis

8





without considering the interaction between different projects; the yield of certain projects may not

be additive to others because of interactions not fully evaluated. Projects have also been assessed

without considering the logistics or cost of making water transfers within the metro region, and to

places where it may be the most needed. The Task Force focused exclusively on the total water supply

potentially available to the Metro Water District without addressing issues related to the distribution

or allocation of water within the District, or the impact of any alternatives on the use or ownership of

existing water resources infrastructure. These issues are significant for many reasons—logistical,

equitable, legal, and political—and could in many cases be the decisive factor in determining whether

to pursue a project. The Task Force also did not presume to suggest how costs for these projects,

including conservation projects, should be allocated. These issues are substantial and would require

further study to provide for a more complete solution.

It should also be reiterated that the Task Force analyses focus only on the incremental gain over and

above existing water supply and conservation plans prepared by the Metro Water District, which

already provide for the implementation of aggressive water conservation measures.

3 RECOMMENDATIONS: SUPPORTING POLICIES AND ACTIONS

The Task Force defines supply and demand contingency options and also recommends a set of

policies and actions for consideration by the Governor and State Assembly. These recommendations

are divided into a set of policies to consider immediately (Section 3.1), and a set of potential policies

to consider as contingency measures (Section 3.2). The recommended policies to consider

immediately are solely conservation focused, because there are no supply-based contingency options

that require immediate policy action, although other near term implementation steps may be

required. Task Force recommendations are based upon those options evaluated and where

appropriate the Task Force provides general policy guidance. The Task Force does not intend to

provide prescriptive policy language. Note, as well, that all Task Force recommendations are set in

the context of the ruling, which creates a potential shortfall only in the Metro Water District. Under

certain considerations, these recommendations could have broader application and could be

considered for application outside the region. Section 3.2 contains additional policies identified

through the Task Force process, that may be worthy of consideration, but were not based upon the

Task Force’s evaluation of specific options.

Several state and local agencies would play key roles in implementing these policies. The office of the

Governor, Georgia General Assembly, the Georgia Department of Natural Resources/EPD, GEFA, the

Metro Water District (including local governments and water utilities), and other executive agencies

such as the Georgia Soil and Water Conservation Commission, the Department of Community

Affairs, and the Georgia Forestry Commission, all would have active and critical roles in

implementing policies and in enforcement and oversight. The Regional Water Planning Councils

9





should also consider the recommendations and policies outlined in this report as relevant to their

regions and the state water plan.

3.1 Policy Recommendations to pursue now

The Task Force recommends a set of “no regret” conservation options which should be implemented

immediately, regardless of the ultimate outcome of the Lake Lanier ruling. These demand

management programs are generally cost-effective, and promote both short and long-term water

management goals. Specifically, the Task Force recommends that the Metro Water District pursue

more aggressive incentive-driven conservation programs and adopt more aggressive conservation-

pricing schemes, even if Lake Lanier is reauthorized for water supply use.

A detailed set of policies and actions are provided for each of the recommended conservation

options, categorized into the following sections:

• General conservation principles

• Enhanced efficiency programs (both residential and commercial, including programs for toilets,

showerheads, faucets, washing machines, spray rinse valves, and cooling towers)

• New outdoor water usage policies (watering restrictions and rain sensor irrigation systems)

• More multi-family sub-metering

• Improved information for loss reduction programs

• More aggressive conservation pricing

• Renewed water education

These policy recommendations support entirely incentive-driven implementation plans. Again, focus

is on the Metro Water District but these recommendations could be considered for wider application

across the state.

General conservation principles

With respect to those general principles which help foster a culture of conservation, the Task Force

proposes that statutes be considered that reinforce certain principles:

• Require minimum implementation of water conservation measures by embedding water

conservation implementation requirements in state permits, with active enforcement via

periodic reporting

• Require adoption of real-time data collection for all water withdrawals, adoption of

compatible online data management systems and reporting practices, and publication of

water statistics for all users and use categories

• Tie state investment in water supply and other types of funding to minimum levels of water

conservation implementation

10





- Increase state financial support grants and low interest loans for water and

wastewater infrastructure

• Recommend that the state develop guidance or technical assistance programs for water

utilities, e.g. education on cost benefit analysis, conservation evaluation (i.e. AWE's

conservation tracking software)

Enhanced efficiency programs

The Task Force recommends that state and local governments and water utilities consider new rebate

programs or enhanced existing rebate and tax credit programs that would provide greater financial

incentives for individual water users to install and retrofit efficient fixtures and convert to water-

saving appliances. Specifically, the Task Force recommends that:

• State and local government appropriate funds for residential retrofit rebate programs for

toilets, showerheads and faucet aerators

• State and local governments and water utilities establish diverse rebate and tax credit

programs

- Expand rebate programs to all residential Water Sense appliances (e.g., washing

machines, dishwashers, etc)

- Expand rebate programs to include commercial spray rinse valves used in

commercial kitchens and restaurants, and commercial cooling towers

New outdoor water usage policies

To address discretionary outdoor watering demands, the Task Force recommends that state and

local governments appropriate funds for rebate programs to retrofit existing residential and

commercial landscaping irrigation systems with rain sensors

More multi-family sub-metering

To encourage better accountability of personal water usage in multi-family complexes, the Task Force

proposes that statutes be considered that requires state and local governments and water utilities to

provide rebate incentives to existing non-sub-metered multi-family complexes to install sub-meters.

Improved information for loss reduction programs

The Task Force recommends several policies related to general water loss data management and leak

abatement programs to minimize loss of Georgia’s water resources. These actions should be

implemented regardless of whether Lake Lanier is reauthorized or not. The goal of these policies is

not to set specific water loss targets, especially given the data quality in this area, but to prepare local

governments and water utilities for future evaluations of leak abatement programs and targets.

Specifically, the Task Force recommends that:

• Every water utility conduct water loss assessments to IWA/AWWA (International Water

Association / American Water Works Association) standards.

11





- Audits to improve consistency of non-revenue loss data and terminology, and

enable better comparison of this benchmark across utilities and over time to assess

progress

- The utilization of standardized audits can be phased in with larger utilities

complying within 3 years

• A funding program be developed provide financial assistance to water utilities for capital-

intensive projects related to decreasing water loss

- Direct GEFA to prioritize use of Clean Water and Drinking Water State Revolving

Funds for projects that reduce water loss

• State and local government and industry associations assist in developing technical

assistance program to provide guidance to water utilities for leak abatement programs

- Technical guidance should be developed and water utilities given time to create and

implement a program based on utility size or service population

• Every water utility develop a “real water loss” reduction program such as leak abatement

options to address actual water leaks (i.e. not billing or metering problems)

- Program can include leak detection and repair, valve exercising, and pressure

management

• Every water utility develop a lost revenue recovery program

- Program to include metering techniques such as meter testing and replacement (for

all utility-owned meters including system and customer meters)

- Utility should commit personnel to maintain meter system to accurately capture

real versus apparent losses

More aggressive conservation pricing

To ensure the most effective conservation-based pricing rate structures, the Task Force recommends

that:

• Every water utility conduct a detailed rate study, informed by accurate demand data, to be

used as the basis for setting effective rates on utility-level basis. Every water utility should:

- Identify key customer classes such as single family residential, multi-family

residential, and commercial users

- Maintain demand data for each customer class, such as (i) total number of

customers in each class, (ii) total number of customers with irrigation meters in

each class, (iii) total number of customers, total water volume sold and total billed

charges for water and sewer at each 1,000 gallon per month consumption increment

(For example, the total number of customers, total water volume sold and total

billed charges for users consuming between 5K - 6K gallons per month, and

similarly between 6K – 7K gallons per month, etc.), for each month.

• Effective residential conservation rate policies be implemented while providing sufficient

flexibility to water utilities to set rates that meet individual requirements (such as sufficient

funding, fair and equitable rates for local customers, bond requirements).

12





- Price per 1000 gallons at key consumption levels (5K, 10K, 15K gallons per month)

for every water utility in the Metro Water District to be comparable to the price

charged by other utilities in the rest of the Metro Water District (no less than 10%

of metro average price), while accounting for customer affordability. Data from the

GEFA rate study may be used for benchmarking. Utilities must assess the feasibility

of implementing the necessary change within 1 – 3 years.

- Volumetric tier endpoints should be consistent with consumer consumption

pattern; Minimum of three tiers with base tier addressing average winter use, Tier 1

allowing 1 day of irrigation per week, Tier 2 addressing all usage above Tier 1

- Price differential across tiers should be significant; Tier 1 price at least 50% above

base tier price, Tier 2 price at least 250% of base tier price

• Every water utility educate consumers about conservation in their monthly bill

- Historical usage to be presented with comparison to average usage of population

served by the utility

- Water utilities to report water usage figures in gallons, to make reports more

intuitive and relevant to customers

• Every water utility conduct a pricing audit to measure key performance indicators, at

minimum every 5 years, but recommended every 2 -3 years

- Comparison of absolute prices at key consumption levels with rest of metro area,

volumetric tier endpoints compared to consumer demand levels, degree of price

change across each tier

Enhanced water conservation education

Successful conservation efforts have robust education and public outreach programs. Therefore, the

Task Force recommends appropriate allocation of funding and resources to support existing

programs and create new programs in order to foster greater understanding of Georgia’s water

resources. Specifically the Task Force recommends that:

• State and local governments provide funding to support state-wide water conservation

campaigns and public outreach programs

• State and local government, in conjunction with water utilities and industry associations,

establish partnerships with local businesses to develop, fund and deliver conservation

education and communications programs.

3.2 Policy Recommendations in case of “Contingency Plan” requirements

In the event that Lake Lanier is not available for future water supply, the Task Force believes that

incentive based conservation would be insufficient to meet shortfalls and that mandate-driven

conservation measures could likely be a necessary component of contingency plans. The Task Force

provides a set of policies and actions for that eventuality, in conjunction with the recommended

contingency options. These policies are categorized into the following initiatives:

13





• Mandatory efficiency programs (both residential and commercial, including programs for

toilets, showerheads, faucets, rain sensors, spray rinse valves, cooling towers)

• Mandatory multi-family sub-metering/or fixture conversion

• Mandated limits on outdoor water usage

The Task Force recommends that these alternative and more aggressive implementation approaches

- mandated options – be considered only if Lake Lanier is not authorized for water supply.

Mandatory efficiency programs

Of all the contingency options, mandated efficiency programs, such as direct installation of efficient

fixtures and retrofit on resale, appear to be the most effective and received the highest support of by

the Task Force. The Task Force would endorse mandated efficiency programs, if necessary, for

contingency planning because of increased water savings, as compared to the incentive-based

programs. Specifically, under the conditions of the contingency plan, the Task Force would

recommend that statutes be considered that:

• Updates plumbing code mandating HET toilets (1.28 gpf), low-flow showerheads and faucet

aerators in all new residential construction

• Mandates water utilities to provide direct installations (water utility providers contract with

plumbing contractors to directly replace fixtures in all customer residences and businesses)

for all residential and commercial retrofits of:

- High-efficiency toilets (1.28 gpf)

- Low-flow showerheads and faucet aerators

- Rain sensors on irrigation systems on residential and commercial premises

- Spray rinse valves in commercial kitchens and restaurants

• Requires residential retrofit on resale (mandatory retrofit with low-flow fixtures on all

properties at change of ownership)

• Mandates higher standards for cooling towers, increasing their water efficiency from 2 to 5

cycles of concentration (which can result in ~40% water savings).

Mandatory multi-family sub-metering

If necessary, the Task Force recommends the “required” usage of sub-meters in multi-family

complexes, but provides alternative options where sub-metering retrofits are not cost-effective.

Specifically, the Task Force would recommend that statutes be considered to require all existing non-

sub-metered multi-family complex owners to either install sub-meters or pursue and demonstrate

conversion to efficient fixtures and appliances, if more cost-effective

Mandated limits outdoor water usage policies

Under the contingency options, the Task Force would recommend that policies be considered to

limit discretionary outdoor watering demands. Specifically the Task Force would endorse

consideration of statutes to mandate 'no day-time watering' restrictions, possibly defined as no

watering between 10am – 4pm, for all residential and commercial landscape usages

14





3.3 Additional policies for consideration

In addition to those policy recommendations to pursue immediately, and those that would be

reserved only for contingency purposes, the Task Force also outlines a set of additional policies to

consider. The Task Force believes that these suggestions should be further evaluated, and an

assessment made of their merits for individual local governments and water utilities. The Task Force

suggests consideration of:

Greater general conservation program linking

Water utilities evaluate coupling water efficiency conservation programs and energy efficiency

conservation programs, potentially through partnerships with power utilities

More industrial and commercial efficiency programs

The State consider mandating industrial and commercial facilities to use performance-based

contracts for the operation of cooling tower and boilers

Further enhancement of local outdoor water usage policies

• Local communities be empowered with the ability to manage their own drought response

programs, if more stringent than state requirements, based on local water conditions

• Statute that requires in-service training and continued education of irrigation professionals

under national industry best practices and standards

• Local government and water utility provide financial incentives for residence and businesses

to adopt drought-tolerant landscaping and Xeriscaping

• Statute that mandates more efficient irrigation systems (e.g., rain sensors, moisture sensors)

for all commercial/residential landscape users

Enhanced water audits

Statute that requires commercial water audits for all businesses; and residential water audits for

high-use water customers (as defined by each water utility)

Consideration of voluntary inter-basin transfers into Metro District

Consider defining exceptions to current IBT prohibitions to enable sale (mutually acceptable

transfers) of surplus water from systems outside Metro District, where these are currently prohibited

by IBT ban

Additional water withdrawal authority

Statute to provide Georgia EPD with authority to regulate all surface and ground water withdrawals

between 10,000-100,000 gallons per day during droughts

4 RECOMMENDED CONTINGENCY SOLUTIONS

15





The Task Force contingency plan began with a focus on demand management, through conservation.

Conservation measures are environmentally friendly and often highly cost-effective, and are playing a

major role in the metro region today. These options should be an integral part of any contingency

solution. The range of potential water savings from additional conservation suggests that these

conservative programs are necessary but not sufficient in addressing the potential water shortfall.

Conservation measures are, however, the only options available by 2012, primarily because supply-

focused options such as reservoirs and transfers require time, both in pre-work (eg, permitting,

environmental impact studies) and in actual construction. Conservation options also require time to

yield savings, as they rely on consumer adoption and behavioral changes. However, the Task Force

believes that even if the Metro Water District were to pursue an extremely aggressive conservation

implementation approach through mandates that targeted the 2012 timeframe, the estimated yield

(~80 MGD) would still be insufficient to meet the projected shortfall (~280 MGD). Accordingly, the

Task Force believes that the Metro Water District does not have the ability to address a potential

water shortfall by 2012. This 2012 portfolio, were it to be pursued, would consist of water fixture

retrofits, conservation pricing, and a more comprehensive leak abatement program. The full detailed

set of these 2012 options is listed in Section 4.1.

There is a potential contingency solution that is available to address the 2015 shortfall, although it

would be very expensive and potentially very difficult to implement. Consequently, the Task Force

believes that this solution should not be pursued unless it is absolutely required. In addition to the

conservation options within the 2012 plan, the additional options available by 2015 include a number

of small, isolated groundwater systems (contributing ~15% of the portfolio’s yield). But more

importantly, it would feature a major reliance on an indirect potable reuse project (which contributes

~75% of the overall portfolio yield). Indirect potable reuse would involve recapturing treated

wastewater downstream from its original point of discharge, after dilution via sufficient contact with

naturally occurring water, such as lakes or rivers. It would then be pumped back to upstream

communities to replenish water supplies. This option is described further in Section 4.2.

This potential 2015 solution would require significant upfront capital of approximately $3 billion. It

would supply water at an average unit cost of $890/MG, which is twice as costly as a potential 2020

solution. Another way to gauge the cost of contingency solutions is to consider the impact on the

retail price of water. If one assumes that the incremental cost is borne (directly or indirectly) by

water providers, retail water costs across the Metro Water District would have to increase by

approximately 55% for the 2015 portfolio, versus ~32% for the 2020 portfolio. Clearly, the solution

could pose a significant near-term economic burden on water consumers.

By 2020, a broader set of more cost-effective potential solutions exists, and the Task Force believes

that such a portfolio is worthy of consideration, if required for contingency planning. These

components include supply enhancement options such as existing reservoir expansions and new

reservoir development, projects which require an estimated 8-12 years to come online. Because there

are a larger set of options available by 2020, there are also many ways one could prioritize options to

16





create potential water supply portfolios. One such portfolio could be based on cost efficiency alone.

Applying this method, the most cost-efficient portfolio could address the 350 MGD 2020 shortfall

through an upfront investment of approximately $2.3 billion, and an average unit cost of $410/MG.

Using this most cost-efficient portfolio as a starting point, the Task Force incorporated

environmental impact concerns and feasibility considerations to arrive at a recommended 2020

portfolio to address the shortfall. With an average unit cost of $460/MG and an upfront capital

requirement of approximately $1.7 billion, this portfolio would consist primarily of the conservation

measures and groundwater systems previously mentioned, plus four existing reservoir expansions

and one new reservoir build. Full details of options included can be found in Section 4.3, while the

process of developing this solution is discussed further in Section 5.2.

Table 1 summarizes key metrics such as yield and cost for the 2015 and 2020 contingency portfolio of

options. Note that there is no possible solution by 2012, and that the 2015 solution is nearly twice as

expensive as the 2020 solution. Also of note, the shortfall shown for 2015 is 310 MGD and for 2020,

350 MGD. These shortfall values assume Metro District demand follows long-term projections as per

the existing water plan. Implicitly, this assumes the region would not face demand reduction as a

result of the ruling.

Table 1: Summary of Potential 2015 and 2020 Solutions

2015 solution 2020 solution

Yield (MGD) ~340

(2015 shortfall is ~310)

~360

(2020 shortfall is ~350)

Capital Cost ($ million) ~3,060 ~1,660

Cost efficiency ($/MG) ~890 ~460

Total 50 year cost ($ million) ~5,035 ~2,940

Potential impact on Metro District weighted

average retail water rates (assuming costs

borne directly/indirectly by utilities)

~55% increase

(assuming ~$5/kgallons

base rate)

~32% increase

4.1 Description of 2012 option portfolio

When considering the challenge posed by Judge Magnuson's ruling, the first question to evaluate was

whether potential water shortfall in July 2012 can be addressed. As mentioned, the Task Force does

not believe that the Metro Water District can meet the potential supply gap by 2012, even with

extremely aggressive conservation measures, including drought-response level, full outdoor watering

bans.

Mike

Highlight

17





Only conservation options would likely provide yield only by 2012, as they do not require the

planning and construction time of infrastructure-based options. Many conservation options,

however, still require ramp-up time, and could only yield a fraction of their potential savings by 2012.

For example, options such as conservation pricing, sub-metering, and use of more efficient fixtures

would require consumers to adopt the option and/or change their behavior, which could take several

years. Capture and control options, such as reservoirs, require significant pre-work, such as

permitting, technical design and environmental impact studies, which often take 3-4 years prior to

start of construction. Because of these significant lead times, most of these capture and control

options would not be available until 2020, except a small ground water project.

Figure 2: Aggressive implementation of conservation options insufficient to address 2012 gap

Figure 2 illustrates alternative conservation approaches, and demonstrates that conservation alone,

even under extremely aggressive scenarios, would be insufficient to meet the potential 2012 water

shortfall. The vertical axis represents potential savings in 2012 (MGD), with the dark green

designating incentive-driven water savings and the light green highlighting the additional yield

available through mandated conservation options. The first scenario on the left shows the estimated

impact from the range of conservation options identified by the Task Force; 26-79 MGD of water

savings by 2012. The hypothetical, middle scenario shows what one could achieve if one were to

increase marginal water prices on discretionary outdoor use (above 14,000 gallons per month) to

existing city of Atlanta levels. While the estimated water savings would increase, it would still not be

enough to close the gap. On the right is another hypothetical scenario, representing savings if

residential watering bans were enacted. Even under this mandatory conservation scenario, the

18





realized savings would not be sufficient to address the shortfall. Moreover, even if conservation

options could offset the shortfall in totals, actual conservation savings tend to be diffused across the

entire metro region. So, even that amount of conservation would not guarantee that shortfalls in

critically affected areas could be met. It is clear, however, that conservation efforts across all counties

of the metro region are critical to establish an overall culture of conservation, to demonstrate good

stewardship of a limited resource, and to benefit downstream users.

As stated in the introduction, conservation savings evaluated by the Task Force should be considered

as incremental to existing plans. Incremental conservation savings are somewhat limited because of

the degree of progress the Metro District has made and continue to makes. As shown in Figure 3,

Metro Atlanta (the 15-county area) has decreased per-capita usage 13 gallons/capita/day (or 8%)

between 2003 and 2006, to a level below that of many other metro areas.

Figure 3: Overall District water usage levels

1. State average; data not available for individual cities in ALNote: Overall per capita is calculated by dividing total gallons of water produced by water provider by the population served, where total gallons of water produced includes use for residential, commercial, industrial, irrigation, and non-revenue waterSource: Georgia EPD analysis with data collected from 2000 - 2008

Per capita public supply use, by metro areas– showing Metro ATL 2003 and 2006 actual usages

105

128

134

150151

155

157

158

163164164

167

175

190

206213

218

233

252

254

139

0 50 100 150 200 250

Las Vegas, NV

Columbia, SCAlabama1

Phoenix, AZDallas, TX

Macon, GeorgiaCharlotte, NC

Denver, CO

Albuquerque, NMNW Florida Water M’ment Dist, FL

Tuscon, AZMiami, FL

LaGrange, GeorgiaLos Angeles, CA

Metro ATL- 2006 actualSt. Johns River Water M’ment Dist, FL

San Antonio, TX

Metro ATL - 2003 actual

New York City, NYPortland, OR

Seattle, WA

Gallons/capita/day

Considering the cost-effective and environmentally friendly nature of conservation options, the real

choice with conservation is not whether to include it in the solution, but rather, by what means to

implement it, namely via incentives or via mandates. For example, consumers might be provided

with tax incentives to replace their high flow toilets, or the state might mandate that all high flow

toilets in the Metro Water District are to be replaced in two years. Overall, an estimated additional

26 MGD can be saved by 2012 through incentives-based conservation.

In comparison, an additional 36MGD can be saved by pursuing mandated programs. There are two

key reasons for mandated programs having a higher yield. First, the estimated yield for incentive-

based conservation programs, as evaluated by the Task Force, does not include what is already

outlined in existing water plans. Key incentive-based conservation programs such as toilet retrofits,

19





showerheads and faucets, multi-family sub-metering etc. have already been set into motion by the

Metro Water Plan, thereby decreasing the size of the incremental opportunity. Second, significantly

higher market penetrations for conservation programs are likely to be achieved only through

mandates. For example, in case of multi-family sub-metering, a mandate is the only means to ensure

that 100% of multi-family buildings in the area opt for sub-meters; an incentive based approach

would generate lower levels of adoption. Figure 4 lists the conservation options available through

conservation 2012, under an incentive based approach. Detailed descriptions of these conservation

options considered may be found in Appendix III. (Note: based on their estimated cost efficiencies,

grey water reuse and pipeline replacement options, with cost efficiencies in excess of $15,000/MG,

were not included 2012 solution portfolio).

In addition, an effective and robust set of education and public outreach programs are essential to

fully realize the potential water savings through conservation. A key requirement for a public

education and awareness program is sufficient funding. The estimated cost of public education is

approximately $1 per person, or ~$4 million for the Metro Atlanta District in a 3-year effort to reach

the entire population. Even with this additional $4 million expenditure on education, which is

equivalent to additional cost over and above the cost of conservation programs, of $50-$100/MG

water saved, they are still highly cost effective.

Figure 4: Options available by 2012

20





4.2 2015 contingency portfolio

The potential water shortfall in 2015 arising from Judge Magnuson’s ruling could be addressed only by

a contingency solution that supplies water at an incremental average cost of approximately $890/MG.

The options that would constitute this relatively expensive solution are shown in Figure 5. This

contingency portfolio would consist primarily of isolated groundwater systems and a large relatively

expensive, indirect potable reuse project. As previously noted, the indirect potable reuse option

drives the majority of the cost of the 2015 portfolio, and there is little flexibility in the 2015

contingency portfolio solution, since indirect potable reuse is the only significant option that is

available in this timeframe. It is important to note that indirect potable reuse would not be part of

the lowest cost 2020 portfolio, if the Metro water district had more time to respond.

Figure 5: Options in 2015 contingency portfolio

But because the indirect potable reuse option is central to the 2015 portfolio, it is worth denoting

exactly what this option entails. Indirect potable reuse recaptures wastewater that has been diluted

with natural water from rivers and lakes, to provide water for drinking purposes. It is currently

practiced in the Metro District in both planned and incidental forms. But the 2015 solution would rely

on a dramatic expansion of this option by building an extensive network of pipes, and pumping the

water to upstream communities critically affected by the ruling. The map in Figure 6 provides an

overview of the pipe and pump infrastructure required to implement this indirect potable reuse

option. There would be three water intake points where wastewater that would have been mixed with

natural water would be withdrawn: Cedar Grove, Lake Jackson, and McGinnis Ferry. Cedar Grove –

the major water intake location – would be chosen 5 miles downstream of the further downstream

wastewater discharge location to allow for sufficient contact with natural water and thus ensure

21





sufficiently high wastewater quality. The pipes help deliver the pumped water back upstream to the

critically affected communities, where this water would enter existing water treatment facilities to

replenish the drinking water supply. These pipes across the various counties drive the high cost of

this option.

Figure 6: Indirect potable reuse infrastructure requirement

26144200-01 TF Mtg 2-23 Nov-v22.ppt

Fulton

Forsyth

Fulton Camp Creek WRF

New Forsyth/Cumming

Lake Lanier WWTP

Bethelview Road WRF

Flowery Branch WPCP

Water treatment plants

Wastewater treatment plants

Storage locations

Buford Storage

Hall

Gainesville Linwood WRF

Gainesville Flat Creek WRF

Cobb

DeKalbAtlanta Utoy Creek WRC

Cobb RL Sutton WRF

Cobb South Cobb WRF

Gwinnett JacksonCreek WRF

Cobb NoondayCreek WRF

Atlanta SouthRiver WRC

DeKalbPolebridge WPCP

Fulton BigCreek WRF

Cobb NorthwestCobb WRF

Atlanta RM Clayton WRC

Snapfinger WPCP

Reuse water withdrawals

CedarGrove

Bellwood Quarry

DeKalb ScottCandler WTP

Gwinnett CrookedCreek WRF

Fulton JohnsCreek WRF

New Southeast ForsythWRF/Forsyth Reuse

F Wayne Hill WRC

GwinnettYellowRiver WRF

21 mile

s

13 m

iles

21 mile

s24

mile

s

17 m

iles

Gwinnett

54

mil

es

Lake Jackson

GA 20

McGinnisFerry

Pipelines

Source: Technical Advisory Panel analysis;

Infrastructure requirement in the 6 critically affected counties:

The Indirect Potable Reuse project would also raise a number of concerns about implementation

feasibility. First, there would be risks concerning implementation timing, due to the need for

extensive technical design, permitting, processes of obtaining easements, and other factors. While

this option could possibly be implemented by 2015, any delay in these activities could jeopardize the

ability to implement this solution in a timely manner. Second, there would be significant funding

challenges to be addressed. The solution would have a high upfront capital need of approximately

$2.8 billion, and would include multiple entities in the Metro Water District. It would also be a

challenge to specify the necessary contracts and to establish a suitable governance structure to

manage the project. The option would also have the potential for significant environmental impact,

such as change in water quality levels and temperatures, which could necessitate additional

mitigation costs. Further, there would be questions about the degree to which consumers would

embrace the concept of reusing water for potable purposes. Clearly, there would be significant non-

financial considerations to be taken into account if this option were to be implemented.

4.3 Recommended 2020 portfolio of options

If required, the Task Force recommends a portfolio of options to address the water shortfall by 2020.

This portfolio would better balance cost-effectiveness and feasibility considerations than the 2015

22





portfolio. The primary difference between this portfolio and the 2015 contingency portfolio would the

expansion of four existing reservoirs (Tussahaw Creek, Dog River, Big Haynes Creek, and Etowah

River Dam 1) and development of one new reservoir (Richland Creek). These more cost effective

options would take the place of the indirect potable reuse project. Figure 7 summarizes the options

that would comprise this portfolio, along with their associated cost and yield estimates.

Figure 7: Options in recommended 2020 portfolio

The recommended 2020 portfolio would feature aggressive implementation of retrofit and efficiency

programs. Specifically, toilet retrofits, showerhead and faucet retrofits, multi-family sub-metering,

and spray rinse valve retrofits would be included, and implemented through a direct installation

program, rather than relying solely on incentives to encourage adoption. Rain sensor and cooling

tower programs would be included under a more aggressive, but incentive-based implementation

approach. The 2020 portfolio would also include critical reservoir expansion options (~156 MGD),

based on their relatively higher cost-efficiency and relatively lower environmental impact concerns

(as compared to new reservoirs).

The Task Force believes that an incentive-based conservations approach could be readily

implemented, independent of the potential impact of Judge Magnuson’s ruling. And the Task Force

would endorse a mandate-based approach only as a contingency solution. More detail regarding Task

Force deliberations on these options can be found in Section 6.1.

Note that no interbasin transfer options are recommended as part of the 2020 contingency portfolio.

This is primarily a result of their high relative cost, as well as due to Task Force member input on

23





preferred solutions, and an assessment of implementation feasibility. Their non-inclusion does not

imply that transfers are never warranted, or that a transfer option could not address a different

situation. But, for purposes of the 2020 portfolio, based on both cost efficiency and feasibility, there

were superior alternatives to interbasin transfers. It is also possible that some other future transfer

options, not explicitly evaluated by the Task Force (e.g., sale of surplus water), may prove cost-

effective and worthy of consideration.

5 METHODOLOGY

The Task Force employed a systematic option prioritization process in order to develop the

recommended contingency solutions. This enabled on initial, broad assessment of many options,

followed by increasingly detailed evaluation of a subset of preferred options. Through this process,

key options and potential solution portfolios were first identified. Task Force member input was

collected through specific surveys, to gage support for alternative portfolios and to converge on

recommended solutions. This section describes the methodology relied upon to generate the

‘primary’ and ‘alternative’ 2020 solutions. The following section describes the feedback received from

the Task Force on principles, and on portfolios and options, and the implications for the 2020

contingency solution recommended.

5.1 Task Force solution development process

The Task Force followed a three step process to define, evaluate, and prioritize options, as shown in

Figure 8.

Figure 8: Task Force solution development process

Input gathered from

• Options previously

considered in GA planning

• Options used

in other regions

• Taskforce members'

input

Define Evaluate Prioritize

Recommended

solutions• No regret

moves• Contingency

options

Consolidate all

potentially applicable options for evaluation

Estimate high-level cost and

water savings for

subset

Prioritize solutions

Inputs

Full set of potential options

24





In the first step, the full set of potential options were defined from existing water plans, options

considered by other regions, input from Task Force members, technical advisors, and various groups.

The Task Force considered these options in three broad categories. The first was existing programs or

options that could be more quickly or broadly implemented. For example, this could mean phasing

out high-flush toilets in the Metro Area within the next 5 years, instead of according to a 10-year plan.

The second broad category was previously-identified but not implemented options. These ideas may

have been passed over for implementation previously because they were not necessary, though they

could potentially be valid in the context of Judge Magnuson’s ruling and its consequences (e.g.,

options deemed to be too costly before could prove to be cost-effective under assumptions that

reflect the impact of the ruling). The third broad category was new ideas that were not previously

assessed. These ideas were sourced from best practices followed by other regions' and input from the

Task Force members. Examples of such ideas include use of non-potable ground water for outdoor

watering in select location and desalination.

In the second step these options were evaluated. This involved making estimates of high-level costs

and yields for a subset of these options. Because the scope and compressed timeline of the Task Force

effort, it is important to recognize that these estimates of cost and yield include a range of

uncertainty. A precise assessment would have required many months of detailed technical design,

and hydrology studies that were outside the Task Force scope. However, the estimates are

comparable across options, are based upon the use of common estimation methodologies and

standard input assumptions, where appropriate, across options. For example, all options employed

standard methodologies for reservoir yield determinations, water transport costs and treatment costs

(refer to Appendix IV for details).

For all options, initial capital costs (construction, installation, program rollout, etc) and ongoing

operating expenses were estimated. Where possible, capital and operating costs were defined per

‘phase’ or ‘process’- for example, for Aquifer Storage and Recovery (ASR) options, costs were

estimated for initial treatment, injection, extraction, and re-treatment phases. Cost scale factors

were applied where appropriate, (eg, water treatment, pipeline costs) to adjust unit costs for option

size. Project lifetimes were assumed based upon the duration of the option (generally 50-year

lifetimes were assumed) and total costs over project lifetimes were summed in 2010 dollar terms (ie,

present value). These total costs were applied against total expected lifetime yields (in Average

Annual Day terms- AAD) to obtain the $/MG cost efficiency metric. This cost metric enables

comparison across different types of options, with different cost profiles (upfront capital cost loaded

versus steady operating costs every year)

Figure 9 provides a summary of the key feasibility considerations used to evaluate options (details on

how each option fares against these criteria can be found in the Appendix III.) Additionally, options

were also classified as "no regrets" (i.e., pursue irrespective of the ruling) or "contingency options"

(i.e., those to pursue only if the judge’s ruling were to take effect), based on Task Force member

survey input. Details on these options are presented in Section 6.2.

25





Figure 9: Options key feasibility considerations

5.2 Primary’ and ‘Alternate’ 2020 portfolios

The Task Force also relied on a similar prioritization process, which as depicted in Figure 10, to

identify ‘Primary’ and ‘Alternate’ portfolios. This practically pertains only to the 2020 contingency

solution, as there were not multiple viable options to address the water shortfall prior to this. By

2020, however, there should be a broad set of potential contingency options available, requiring

prioritization of specific options. The Task Force believed it was important to consider various 2020

alternatives, in part because of key uncertainties in terms of implementation feasibility.

Figure 10: Defining the ‘primary’ and ‘alternate’ 2020 portfolios

26





The starting point for these alternatives was the 2020 lowest cost option portfolio. This portfolio was

determined by a simple ranking of the cost efficiency of all options evaluated (See Figure 11). Cost,

yield, and timing estimates were generated by technical advisors and validated with local water

professionals. The lowest cost options that filled the gap were selected in sequence. Note that this

portfolio contains the Lake Burton interbasin transfer option, based on its estimated cost efficiency.

Figure 11: Options in the lowest cost 2020 portfolio

At this point in the process, Task Force members were asked to provide ratings through a survey (described in Section 6), and to summarize implementation feasibility considerations (as described in Figure 9), and to apply them to these options. Task Force members were asked their level of support (through a 5- point scale) for the options, as well as whether they would continue to support the option even in the event Lake Lanier were reauthorized.

Two resulting portfolios emerged from these qualitative considerations, termed ‘primary’ and

‘alternate’ 2020 portfolios. These alternatives differ primarily on the mode of conservation (i.e. the

desired extent of incentive-driven options vs. mandates), and the mix of reservoir expansions vs. new

builds. The recommended 2020 portfolio of options was then designed based on Task Force feedback

on these ‘primary’ and ‘alternate portfolios.

The set of options that make up the primary 2020 portfolio are shown in Figure 12. There are two key

changes relative to the lowest cost portfolio of options: First, the Lake Burton interbasin transfer

option was removed as it was deemed to pose significant implementation challenges. Second, a leak

abatement option was included despite its high cost, as it received very high support from Task Force

members. As a result of these changes, the ‘primary’ portfolio which the Task Force recommends

27





would address the 2020 water shortfall at an average unit cost of approximately $470/MG, with an

upfront capital requirement of around $2 billion.

Figure 12: Options in the ‘primary’ 2020 portfolio

The logic underlying ‘alternate’ portfolio, shown in Figure 13, would be to further enhance

implementation feasibility and minimize environmental impact. Specifically, the portfolio would

achieve this by incorporating more aggressive (mandated) retrofit programs (~28 MGD incremental

yield) and increased incentives for rain sensor retrofits (3 MGD) and by prioritizing reservoir

expansions over new reservoirs. Thus, the option of building a new reservoir NW of Forsyth would be

excluded in favor of the Etowah River Dam No. 1 expansion project. The resulting cost-efficiency of

this portfolio would be approximately $460/MG. This portfolio would marginally more cost-efficient

than the ‘primary’ portfolio, because the more aggressive conservation options are more cost-

effective relative to capture options, and provide greater yield.

28





Figure 13: Options in the ‘alternate’ 2020 portfolio and comparison with primary

32144200-01 TF Appendix V.ppt

~360~1,660Wtd. Avg. ~460~370~1,970Wtd. Avg. ~47027171,200Leak abatement27171,200Leak abatement80620580Richland creek reservoir (larger)80620580Richland creek reservoir (larger)

41350615Etowah River Dam No. 1 expansion88660510New reservoir NW of Forsyth47270390Big Haynes Creek reservoir expansion47270390Big Haynes Creek reservoir expansion

1525350Toilet retrofits (direct install program)125375Toilet retrofits (increased rebate program)

23375Palmetto GW system23375Palmetto GW system510375Suwanee GW system510375Suwanee GW system711345Bartow county GW system711345Bartow county GW system

67325Spalding county GW system67325Spalding county GW system

108250Showerheads and faucets (direct install program)

18300Showerheads and faucets

(increased rebate program)

48230300Dog river reservoir expansion48230300Dog river reservoir expansion

65300Lawrenceville GW system65300Lawrenceville GW system2064260Tussahaw Creek reservoir expansion2064260Tussahaw Creek reservoir expansion56170Cooling towers (required standards)36170Cooling towers (rebate program)

36170Multi family sub-metering (retrofit 100% existing units)

26165Multi family sub-metering (retrofit 50% existing homes)

158155GW for non-potable use (parks, golf courses, etc)

158155GW for non-potable use (parks, golf courses, etc)

614125Conservation pricing614125Conservation pricing

21110Spray rinse valves (direct install program)0.31115Spray rinse valves (rebate program)

6670Rain sensors (retrofit 50% existing systems)

3660Rain sensors (retrofit 25% existing systems)

7010Water restrictions (no daytime watering)7010Water restrictions (no daytime watering)

Yield (MGD)

Capital cost ($M)

Cost efficiency

($/MG)OptionYield

(MGD)

Capital cost ($M)

Cost efficiency

($/MG)Option

Alternate 2020 portfolioPrimary 2020 Portfolio

Note: Changes from "primary" to alternate" portfolio include:1) Most aggressive retrofit/efficiency program implementation, and2) Etowah River Dam 1 expansion instead of New Reservoir NW of Forsyth

29





6 SUMMARY OF TASK FORCE FEEDBACK

Feedback was collected from Task Force members throughout the process, on many levels, and it

directly informed the development of these recommendations. The following section summarizes

Task Force feedback on principles of prioritization, solution portfolios, and individual options.

6.1 Summary of Task Force feedback on principles

Task Force members were surveyed on their level of support for set of principles that could be used

for option prioritization, before they were asked about any individual options. This was done to

clarify the underlying logic that Task Force members, as individuals and as sub-groups (business,

elected officials, conservation, etc) would prefer to be used to evaluate and prioritize solutions.

Figure illustrates the of Task Force responses on each principle.

Figure 14: Distribution of Task Force responses on support for key prioritization principles

The Task Force was in fairly strong agreement that if given the choice, conservation measures should

be implemented via incentives rather than mandates. There was also consensus on the principle that

both cost effectiveness and environmental impact should be balanced when arriving at a

recommended portfolio of options. Further, to address the immediate shortfall situation, most Task

Force members felt that temporary transfers to an affected area would be acceptable. However,

temporary transfers only apply to system interconnections, or specific reservoirs which could enable

30





sharing water from an area which currently has a surplus. Large, infrastructure-intensive interbasin

transfers cannot be temporary because they would not be economically feasible. There were,

however, several principles on which opinions diverged. For example, there were considerable

differences within the Task Force on whether policy control should rest at the local or state level, and

whether or not long-term inter-basin transfers should be allowed.

Figure 15 shows a different summary of Task Force feedback on principles. It summarizes the degree

to which, Task Force members affiliated with different groups, tended to support the key

prioritization principles. In general, there was consensus across most groups, although the

conservation group affiliated members often expressed opinions differing from other groups. It is

useful to understand the degree of endorsement for various prioritization principles by different

groups, as well as the potentially divergent viewpoints that could be encountered about key options,

both within the Task Force and more broadly. These viewpoints also underscore the key tradeoffs

that should be considered when choosing to implement various options.

Figure 15: Level of support for key prioritization principles by various sub-groups

6.2 ‘Summary of Task Force feedback on portfolios

Task Force members also provided feedback through additional surveys, on the various portfolios of

options previously described. In general, the Task Force indicated high levels of support for both the

‘primary’ and ‘alternate’ 2020 portfolios. There was also a consensus among Task Force members that

31





more could be done via conservation measures, although differences in opinion did emerge over the

method of implementation (i.e., incentives versus mandates).

When asked directly to choose one portfolio to endorse as a 2020 contingency solution, Task Force

members leaned toward the “alternate” portfolio, with mandated conservation measures, at a slightly

higher rate than toward “primary” portfolio (the margin of difference was 4 responses from a total of

58). Additional comments indicate that while almost all Task Force members recognized the need

for, and are willing to endorse mandates in a truly "dire" situation, most feel strongly that initial

implementation should be incentive-based. Furthermore, most Task Force members recognized that

an optimal approach includes a blend of mandates and incentives for specific options, rather than an

“all or nothing” approach.

When asked about the conditions necessary to secure their endorsement for specific portfolio

solution, most Task Force members cited the need for further, detailed analyses of potential impact

to downstream resources. Additionally, many encouraged follow-on evaluation of the potential cost-

benefit of developing additional reregulation capacity on the Chattahoochee River below Buford Dam

(e.g. dredging Morgan Falls reservoir). These items are discussed in more detail in Section 7 of this

report.

In terms of the 2015 portfolio of contingency options (dominated by the indirect potable reuse

option), Task Force support was very mixed. These options that could potentially address the gap by

2015 were generally viewed as costly and impractical. A comment from one Task Force member

summarized the overall thoughts on this potential solution portfolio; “Indirect potable reuse is a very

expensive way to do what we're already doing – drawing water out of the ACF and putting it back

after using and treating it”. The Task Force supports this portfolio only as an absolute contingency if

required to meet timing constraints.

6.3 ‘No-regret’ and ‘contingency’ options

In addition to a survey of Task Force preferences on alternative 2020 portfolios, Task Force members

were also surveyed on their views on specific options. As summarized in Section 5.1, the Task Force

relied on survey results to identify ‘no-regret’ and ‘contingency’ options. On the chart in Figure 16,

each option is plotted based on two attributes: 1) the option's average level of support (as indicated

by respondents' rating), and 2) the option’s average level of support even assuming Lake Lanier

reauthorization (as indicated by the percent of respondents who chose "implement even with Lanier

reauthorization" on the survey).

Through this lens, the Task Force identified those options in the upper right portion of the chart as

‘No-regrets’ (i.e. they earn relatively high support and most Task Force members would support them

even with reauthorization). Options in the top left quadrant are generally well-supported, but only in

32





the event that Lake Lanier is not reauthorized. These are classified as ‘contingency’ options. Any

options falling below the horizontal line are generally viewed as unfavorable.

Clearly, incentive-driven conservation measures stand out as ‘no-regret’ options. These include toilet

retrofits, showerhead and faucet retrofits, cooling tower programs, and conservation pricing.

Reservoir expansions have the highest support among contingency options, followed by new

reservoirs, groundwater systems and, then, indirect Potable Reuse. It is also noteworthy that

additional conservation measures, including leak abatement and mandated retrofits, have relatively

high support. In the case of leak abatement, the recommended actions on mandatory data collection

and reporting and utility plan development were endorsed as ‘no-regret’ options for immediate

consideration.

Figure 16: Assessment of ‘no-regret’ and ‘contingency’ options through TF survey results

6.4 Alternative views on key types of options

As one might expect, for many issues there was not complete alignment among Task Force members’

views. A key role of the Task Force is to highlight those areas of differences and summarize

alternative perspectives for consideration by policy-makers. This section presents alternative

viewpoints on the major sub-sets of options. This is a considerably distilled summary. The

compendium of Task Force members’ comments and submissions is in the Appendix VI.

Conservation efficiency programs:

33





Conservation efficiency programs include options such as toilet retrofits, showerheads and faucets,

outdoor watering restrictions, etc. A full list of conservation efficiency programs evaluated can be

found in Appendix III. For these measures, there is a consensus that they should be integral to the

overall solution. However, there are diverging viewpoints on whether these options should be

implemented via mandates or incentives. As an example, discretionary outdoor water use can be

controlled via tiered pricing as a form of incentive, or be completely banned as was done during the

drought. Proponents of a mandate-based implementation cite the opportunity to realize higher yields

with minimal environmental impact as the key rationale. On the other hand, those supporting an

incentive-based implementation place more weight on the higher quality-of-life associated with

incentive based solutions.

In addition, some proponents of conservation advocate that all potential demand-management

options should be considered before any supply options, including those conservation options with

potentially low yields and/or high unit costs. For example, residential greywater recycling could

reduce potable water use (20-25 MGD) but it is not included in the recommended portfolio due to its

estimated unit cost (~$15,000/MG). Some Task Force members still feel that this option is worth

considering. Further, there are a number of lower yield potential options, (e.g., air-cooled ice-

machines, x-ray machine upgrades) which were identified by some Task Force members but not

investigated in detail. Other Task Force members cite the need to optimize scarce resources (i.e.,

funding, enforcement personnel, etc) and therefore suggest pursuing only those conservation options

with the highest potential return.

Conservation pricing:

There is general support for the conservation pricing option, as being a cost effective and relatively

easy to implement conservation measure. However, there are some Task Force concerns around the

overall degree of price change that is feasible without severe consumer backlash. Furthermore, some

Task Force members point out that any price change would need to preserve the affordability of

water for consumers, since it is fundamental to quality of life. There were also some concerns

regarding the timeframe for implementation. A significant price increase may need to be

implemented over multiple years in small price increments, depending on the appetite that

consumers have for price increases in any given year. This could potentially lead to delays in realizing

water savings.

Indirect Potable Reuse:

Reactions to the Indirect Potable Reuse option are mixed. On the one hand, some Task Force

members believe it is the only available option that can address the shortfall by 2015. Further, some

point out that it is currently practiced in the Metro Water District and the proposed option is just an

expansion of existing practice. However, there are also substantial concerns among many other Task

Force members over the high cost of implementation and implementation feasibility, as discussed in

Section 4.2.

Reservoir creation and expansion:

34





Capture options such as new reservoirs and reservoir expansion receive broad support as contingency

options. Those supporting these options tend to argue that they lend themselves to providing long-

term water supply stability to the region in addition to resolving contingency issues, which in turn

helps economic development. Additionally, most of these options are regarded as relatively cost-

effective. There is another school of thought within the Task Forces, however, that these options

should only be considered to be “last resort” measures, owing to the associated environmental

impact. However, there is general agreement that reservoir expansions would have lower

environmental impact, when compared to new reservoir builds. Additionally, there are concerns that

reservoirs would adversely impact the amount of water that would be available for downstream

communities. At minimum, the Georgia EPD in-stream flow requirements would need to be met by

each proposed reservoir option.

Interbasin transfers:

There are substantial differences of views on the long-term interbasin transfer options that were

evaluated by the Task Force. Some Task Force members envision a regional water-planning model

where water supply would be managed for the entire system as a whole, as opposed to localized

regions. Interbasin transfer options become a key ingredient of this vision. Other Task Force

members oppose these options, and cite the significant implementation challenges that they pose,

such as the need for legislative change, the degree of environmental impact etc. Additionally,

interbasin transfers could benefit some users at the expense of others. The specific impact, of course,

would depend on the degree of return flows that are mandated under the implementation regime

and their precise location.

Those Task Force opinions were also informed by a rich variety of official comment and submissions

to the Task Forces, a compendium of all official comments and submissions to the Task Force is

available in Appendix VI.

7 TOPICS PENDING FURTHER EVALUATION

There are three main areas where the Task Force felt that additional evaluation and analysis were

required to reach conclusions but these analyses were beyond the scope and timeline of the Task

Force effort. The first is a more quantitative assessment of the net downstream flow impacts from

pursuing sets of contingency options, an issue raised by several Task Force members. The second is a

more thorough determination of cost and yield for certain options, where the Task Force’s high- level

assessments may not prove adequate and an objective assessment of these topics would require

detailed technical analyses that would require significant time. And the third area relates to the

suggestions the Task Force received to consider the creation of a regional water authority.

7.1 Determination of downstream flow impact

The set of options evaluated by the Task Force would have varying degree of impact on the amount of

water available to downstream users. For example, while conservation programs may have no impact

35





or even a positive downstream impact, capture measures would result in reduced downstream flow

(the degree of reduction is very case specific), and transfer options could benefit a set of downstream

users at the expense of others, depending on the specific location and amount of return flows. Given

the scope and expedited time from the Task Force effort, only basic steps were taken to account for

downstream impact in the option evaluation process. For example, technical advisors incorporated

existing standards, such as the Georgia EPD minimum in-stream flow requirement, to ensure that

adequate water flow is preserved. Further, the yield and cost estimates for various options included

provisions for environmental mitigation.

However, prior to implementing major capture or transfer options it would also be necessary to

perform a detailed due-diligence evaluation that takes into account the net impact of implementing

multiple options, accounting for all minimum flow requirements, and the impact of Judge

Magnuson's ruling on the Corps operating regime. This analysis would need to be done by the

relevant Regional Water Planning Council in association with Georgia EPD, prior to implementing

any option. Further, applying a standard minimum in-stream flow requirement to all existing

reservoirs could change total potential yield available, as well potentially impacting the net

downstream flows.

7.2 Additional options requiring more detailed evaluation

In general, an objective assessment of certain options would require detailed technical analyses that

would require significant time and were beyond the scope of the Task Force. For example, modeling

the hydrology of the Chattahoochee River, downstream of Buford Dam, is essential to assess the net

downstream flow impact of implementing options, and to estimate the yield of certain supply options

(Morgan Falls dredging, increasing supply through better water treatment standards). In addition,

this assessment could require key data that is currently unavailable. For example, the implication of

Judge Magnuson’s ruling on (a) future Corps operation of the Buford Dam (essential for developing

the hydrology model), and (b) permitted river withdrawals for counties downstream of the dam

(necessary to assess the potential for transferring surplus water, if available, between counties), was

information unavailable to the Task Force.

Morgan Falls Dredging

The Task Force recommends further detailed analysis, beyond the scope of this preliminary study, to

determine the potential benefit, and associated cost efficiency, which could be realized by dredging

the reservoir behind Morgan Falls Dam (Bull Sluice Lake). Precise levels of possible incremental yield

depend largely on a number of factors, including underlying assumptions regarding Corps operating

procedures with respect to peak hydropower releases. Initial indications suggest that dredging ~1,000

acre feet of sediment could potentially create significant incremental yield, anywhere from 0 to 130

MGD depending on many other factors. Fully understanding the potential benefit of this option, and

how it compares to other options evaluated, requires a detailed analysis to include items such as (1)

modeling hydrology of the Chattahoochee River below Buford Dam given an understanding of future

Corps operating policies, (2) validation or update of historically reported cost estimates, and (3)

36





determination of expected duration of benefits achieved (i.e. lifetime of option). There are also

substantial feasibility challenges and environmental risks that would also need to be addressed

before proceeding further.

Increased water treatment levels and potential supply implications

The minimum flow requirement at Peachtree Creek is dictated by a set of constraints such as

dissolved oxygen levels. If the binding constraint to the minimum flow requirement is determined,

water treatment plants could be upgraded to treat water to a standard that alleviates the constraint,

thereby lowering the minimum flow requirement and creating additional supply. The cost associated

with the upgrade depends on what constraint is being addressed. In theory, this process can be

repeated to alleviate a set of constraints up to the point where cost efficiency no longer available. A

detailed evaluation of this option would require a modeling effort by Georgia EPD to simulate the

hydrology of the Chattahoochee River below Buford Dam, would be based on assumptions of how the

Corps would operate the dam, and would function in existing water treatment standards.

37





System interconnections/Purchase of surplus water

Surplus water available in counties within and surrounding the Metro Water District could

potentially be purchased by counties facing a water shortfall, if system interconnections facilitate the

transfer. On the basis of inputs received by the Task Force, it is unclear at this point as to (1) which

counties would have surplus water, and (2) how much surplus water would be available in 2012. The

availability of surplus water would depend on future growth potential for each county as well as the

possible implications of Judge Magnuson’s ruling on permitted river withdrawals. Further, this water

would likely be available only on the basis of short-term contracts. Additionally, there are challenges

in transferring any available surplus water to counties in need. In some instances, the existing

infrastructure may be unsuitable for large scale transfer of water. There are also issues relating to

water chemistry and water treatment compatibility that might need to be addressed. Even though

these options are unlikely to be long-term solutions, however, they could be evaluated further to

satisfy short-term needs for water.

Commercial user focused conservation programs

While the many efficiency programs were evaluated for residential users, commercial conservation

program potential was not evaluated as fully. The primary limitation is the lack of robust commercial

water use data by user and usage categories. This data gap complicates rigorous opportunity sizing.

Moreover, given the larger scale of commercial facilities, it is possible that options which appear cost

inefficient in residences (eg, greywater reuse) to be viable in some commercial settings. There is

potentially an opportunity to validate the cost efficiency of such programs and define targeted

incentives.

Likewise, there could potentially be an opportunity to tailor conservation pricing to commercial

accounts as a means to motivate conservation and process improvements. One potential concept is

‘budget-based’ account pricing where marginal rate structures would be tailored to specific

commercial accounts, based on account-specific historical usage levels. The latter opportunity could

require enhanced water utility billing capabilities, requiring a more informed cost/benefit assessment

Stormwater Reuse

Stormwater reuse refers to the practice of storing stormwater runoff in large surface ponds and

subsequently using that as a source of water for non-potable use, typically irrigation. The capture of

stormwater was partially addressed through the reservoir pump storage options evaluated by the

Task Force. The pump storage options envisioned river water being pumped at high flows (typically

during and after storm events) for storage and subsequent use. However, Metro Water District,

regional water planning council and/or Georgia EPD could consider conducting a more complete

cost/benefit analysis that accounts for the benefits of reducing urban water runoff. Findings from a

Stormwater Reuse study commissioned by Texas Water Development Board

(http://www.twdb.state.tx.us/iwt/reuse/projects/stormwater.html; due Dec 09/Jan 10) could

potentially be leveraged.

Rainwater Harvesting

38





Rainwater harvesting involves localized capture and storage of rainwater for irrigation and non-

potable indoor uses. Preliminary analysis suggests that residential application of this concept is

potentially expensive, with cost efficiency in excess of $10,000/MG (accounting for upfront

installation cost as well as periodic refurbishment and operating cost over a 50 year life; detailed cost

and yield assumptions can be found in Appendix III). However, there could be potential to apply this

concept at commercial establishments, with more cost effective applications. The cost and yield for

commercial use is highly site specific. Metro Water District, Regional Water Planning Councils,

and/or Georgia EPD could consider a more detailed analysis that evaluates the true potential for this

option, based on the pattern of rainfall in the metro region. The following issues could also be given

consideration: (1) minimum water quality guidelines and standards for rainwater use (2) treatment

methods for indoor use of rainwater (3) appropriate cross-connection safeguards for indoor use of

rainwater in conjunction with existing municipal water supply, and (4) minimum requirements for

the option to be a viable alternative. For example, the Texas Water Development Board recommends

this option only for facilities with 10,000 square feet or greater in roof area.

7.3 Regional governance model

Third, there was some input to the Task Force suggesting that a feasibility study should be conducted

to assess the merits of establishing a Regional Water Entity, which could consolidate some or all

service delivery functions of all water utilities in the Metro District. Such an entity could facilitate

funding and implementation of regional infrastructure projects, for example. It was also suggested

that Regional Water Planning Councils explore the establishment of county consortium to facilitate

the sale of surplus water from surface and groundwater resources in their regions. This evaluation

was not in the scope of the Task Force effort, since it addresses a broader issue of governance in the

context of state wide water planning efforts, and was not directly linked to developing a contingency

plan to address potential water shortfall in the region.

8. Conclusion

The key objective for the Task Force was to define a time-driven action plan prioritizing specific

options and recommendations for conservation, supply enhancement. To that end, the Task Force is

recommending a set of policies for immediate consideration as well as a set of policies and

contingency options to be considered only if absolutely essential.

Policies for immediate consideration include three broad areas of additional conservation

improvements: Instituting mandatory data collection and reporting of key metrics to inform future

planning efforts (eg, utilities would have to conduct standardized water loss audits), adopting higher

water efficiency standards and incentive measures to increase conservation effectiveness. (e.g., more

aggressive conservation pricing, increased incentives for fixture retrofits.), and linking progress on

conservation efforts to funding eligibility, low-interest loan qualifications, and permitting

39





applications to ensure implementation of measures. These actions help reinforce the culture of

conservation in Georgia and would continue the outstanding progress made in the last several years.

Policies for consideration as contingency measures include mandated conservation program (eg,

direct install programs for fixture upgrades, time of day watering restrictions, retrofit on resale). The

Task Force also identified contingency solutions for 2015 and 2020 timeframes, based upon the

expected availability of varying options. A large indirect potable reuse project defines the 2015

contingency solution, whereas the 2020 solution incorporates more cost effective reservoir

expansions and while both contingency solutions are capital intensive and pose significant

incremental costs, the 2020 solution is roughly half as costly per gallon of yield. Based on this

significant cost difference, if a contingency plan is required, the Task Force recommends pursuing

the 2020 solution if possible.

Going forward, the contingency plan will be evaluated in context of the Governor’s overall 4-prongs

strategy to identify whether and when to begin implementation. The near-term policy

recommendations should be considered for incorporation into the state’s general water management

plan.

All Task Force analyses demonstrate clearly that replacing Lake Lanier as a water source would pose

significant incremental economic burdens and environmental impacts. All else equal, water rates

would rise to reflect the higher wholesale cost of water, quality of life would decline thru economic

impacts in addition to increased watering restrictions, and new supply sources would pose some

environmental impacts on existing ecosystems. In summary, Lake Lanier is clearly the most

economically sensible and environmentally friendly water supply source for the metro Atlanta region.

40





DEFINITION OF KEY TERMS

Conserve: A broad category of options evaluated by the Task Force that aim to reduce water demand

by consumers. Examples of conserve options include toilet retrofits, pricing, leak abatement etc. A

complete list of conserve options evaluated by the Task Force can be found in Appendix III.

Capture: A broad category of options evaluated by the Task Force that aim to enhance future water

supply through new sources or by expanding existing sources. Examples of capture options include

new reservoirs, groundwater, Aquifer Storage and Recovery (ASR) etc. A complete list of capture

options evaluated by the Task Force can be found in Appendix III.

Control: A broad category of options evaluated by the Task Force that aim to optimize management

of supply through policy and/or process changes. A complete list of control options evaluated by the

Task Force can be found in Appendix III.

Yield: The amount of water saved (in case of conserve options) or supplied (in case of capture and

control options) by an option, expressed in Millions of Gallons per Day (MGD)

Cost Efficiency: The ratio of the Net Present Value (NPV) of all costs associated with an option

(expressed in 2010 dollars) to the total yield of the option, across the estimated life of the option. This

is expressed in dollars per Million Gallons ($/MG).

41





APPENDIX

I. List of Task Force Members

II. Fact base: water situation, facts on usage

III. Complete set of options evaluated with rationale, cost, yield, implementation feasibility

IV. Technical assumptions used in option evaluation

V. Task Force member survey results

VI. Comments and submissions to Task Force

Water Contingency Planning Task Force Appendix I

List of Task Force Members

1. Ed Holcombe, Office of Governor Sonny Perdue 2. John Brock, Coca-Cola Enterprises 3. Tim Lowe, Lowe Engineers 4. Paul Amos, AFLAC 5. Richard Anderson, Delta Air Lines 6. Kerry Armstrong, Duke Realty 7. Charles Bannister, Chair, Gwinnett County Commission 8. Jose Barella, Merial 9. John Bennett, Chair, Coosa-North Georgia Regional Water Council 10. Gary Black, Georgia Agribusiness Council 11. Frank Blake, The Home Depot 12. Billy Blanchard, Columbus Bank and Trust 13. Rex Boner, The Conservation Fund 14. Casey Cagle, Lt. Governor, Georgia Senate 15. Bill Carruth, Chair, Georgia Department of Natural Resources Board 16. Donald G. Chase, Chair, Upper Flint Regional Water Council 17. Chris Clark, Commissioner, GA Department of Natural Resources 18. Darin Collier, Worthing SE 19. Ken Cornelius, Siemens 20. Ron C. Cross, Chair, Savannah-Upper Ogeechee Regional Water Council 21. Brad Currey, Rock-Tenn Company 22. Scott Davis, UPS 23. Lynn Dempsey, Dempsey Auction Company 24. Sonny Deriso, Atlantic Capital Bank 25. Doug Dillard, Dillard & Galloway, LLC 26. Kit Dunlap, Chair, Metropolitan North Georgia Water Planning District 27. Darvin Eason, Chair, Suwannee-Satilla Regional Water Council 28. John Eaves, Chair, Fulton County Commission 29. Burrell Ellis, CEO, Dekalb County 30. Christian Fischer, Georgia-Pacific 31. Bill Floyd, Mayor, City of Decatur 32. John Fox, Emory Healthcare 33. Shirley Franklin, Mayor, City of Atlanta 34. Gardiner Garrard, The Jordan Company 35. Mike Garrett, Georgia Power Company 36. Larry Gellerstedt, Cousins Properties 37. Taylor Glover, Turner Foundation 38. Steve Green, Stephen Green Properties, Inc. 39. Ben Harbin, Chair, House Appropriations 40. Duane Harris, Sea Georgia Adventures 41. Bob Hatcher, MicCountry Financial Corp. 42. Richard Hays, Alston & Bird 43. Stephen Hill, Solvay Pharmaceuticals

Water Contingency Planning Task Force Appendix I

44. Al Hodge, Greater Rome Chamber of Commerce 45. Pierre Howard, Georgia Conservancy 46. Dale Hughes, Cox Enterprises 47. Greg Hyland, Mueller Water Products 48. Bruce Jackson, Arnall Golden Gregory 49. Bob Johnston, MEAG Power 50. Mark Ketchum, Newell Rubbermaid 51. Shelly Lakly, The Nature Conservancy 52. L. Brinson Lanier, Chair, Altamaha Regional Water Council 53. Craig Lesser, The Pendleton Consulting Group 54. Joe Maltese, City of LaGrange 55. Jack Markwalter, Invesco 56. Richard McSpadden, Chair, Upper Oconee Regional Water Council 57. Al Nash, The Columns Group, Inc. 58. Bill Nuti, NCR Corporation 59. Sam Olens, Chair, Cobb County Commission 60. William Pate, Atlanta Convention and Visitors Bureau 61. Alec Poitevint, Southeastern Materials, Inc. 62. Mike Price, Oglethorpe Power Corporation 63. John Rice, GE Energy 64. Elmo A. Richardson, Chair, Middle Ocmulgee Regional Water Council 65. A. Richard Royal, Chair, Lower Flint Regional Water Council 66. Dave Scheible, Graphic Packaging 67. Donna Sheldon, House Majority Caucus Chair 68. Suzanne Sitherwood, AGL Resources 69. Gary Smith, Strategic Value Properties 70. Jack Smith, Chair, Fayette County Commission 71. Lynn Smith, Chair, House Natural Resources & Environment 72. Rick Smith, Equifax Inc. 73. Tim Stack, Piedmont Healthcare 74. Jan Tankersley, Bulloch County Commissioner 75. Helen Tapp, Trust for Public Land 76. Charles Tarbutton, Sandersville Railroad Company 77. Mike Thomas, Clayton County Water Authority 78. Benjamin Thompson, Chair, Coastal Georgia Regional Water Council 79. Ross Tolleson, Chair, Senate Natural Resources & Environment 80. Clyde Tuggle, The Coca-Cola Company 81. Dan Weber, Chair, Senate Education 82. John Wells, Interface Inc. 83. Philip Wilheit, Wilheit Packaging 84. Virgil Williams, Williams Group International, Inc. 85. Betty Willis, Emory University 86. Matt Windom, Chair, Middle Chattahoochee Regional Water Council 87. Jenner Wood, SunTrust Bank 88. Paul Wood, Georgia EMC

Water Contingency Planning Task ForceAppendix II

Factbase (water usage, degree of progress in recent years)

December 2009

1144200-01 TF Appendix II.ppt

The basics: Overview of GA water supply system

Surface

Ground

Public supply

SourceSource DistributorDistributor End useEnd use DescriptionDescription

• Withdrawn by public and private water suppliers; primarily for domestic/commercial uses, but some supplied for other end uses as well

• Water used for indoor and outdoor household purposes, and commercial business purposes. Most supplied via public supply, but some water is self-supplied (eg, via wells)

• Industrial-use water for manufacturing, processing, transporting, etc. Majority is self-supplied via wells or direct river intakes, but some via public supply

• Water used to sustain plant growth primarily in agricultural practices, but also includes parks, golf courses, etc. Almost exclusively self-supplied.

• Water used in generating electricity with steam-driven turbine generators. Almost exclusively self-supplied.

Total supply

Source: USGS

Self-supplied

• Withdrawn from a surface- or ground-water source by a user rather than being obtained from a public supply (eg, wells)

Domestic/commercial

Industrial

Irrigation

Thermo-electric

~20%

~3%

~1%

~10%

<1%

~15%

<1%

~50%

78%

22%

100%

22%

78%

xx% - % of total GA supply

GA overview


The basics: Overview of GA water supply systemWater sources very

different for Metro ATL vs GA

Water sources very different for

Metro ATL vs GAPublic supply =

22% of GA withdrawalsPublic supply =

22% of GA withdrawalsSelf supply =

78% of GA withdrawalsSelf supply =

78% of GA withdrawals

7899

22

0

20

40

60

80

100

GA

1

Metro ATL 15 counties

Ground

Surface

%

9

91

Domestic/commercial

All other(Industrial,Irrigation,

Thermoelectric)

13

19

64

4Industrial

Thermo-electric

Irrigation

Domestic/commercial

GA overview

Very high reliance on surface water

Source: USGS "Water Use in Georgia by County for 2005; and Water-Use Trends, 1980-2005"


Important to distinguish between total withdrawals and consumptive use

GA overview

216(4%)604

(11%)752

(14%)

1,180(22%)

2,721(50%)

Total Georgia withdrawals

94(7%)72

(5%)

752(57%)

212(16%)

187(14%)

Georgia consumptive use

Other1

Industrial

Irrigation

Public supply

Thermoelectric0

80

100

20

40

60

%

Total use

~1.3BG/day(24% of withdrawals)

~5.5BG/day

1. Includes Domestic and Commercial, and Livestock categoriesNote: percentages may not sum to 100 due to roundingSource: USGS "Water Use in Georgia by County for 2005; and Water-Use Trends, 1980-2005"


Roughly 95% of Metro public supply water use occurs in residential / commercial uses, or system losses

Portion of total Metro water use, 2006

1. Includes apparent losses (meter inaccuracies, data errors, etc) and real losses (leakage, breaks, overflows, etc) 2. "Other" category not defined in Metro planSource: Metro North GA Water Plan (May 2009)

xx%

Public supply

Residential (Domestic) Non-residential

Toilets

55

Faucets

50

Laundry

50

Showers

47

Other

47

360

680

211

Xxx

xxMGD

3%7%7%8%

Thermo-electric

0

1%

Industrial

27

4%

Commercial

170

25%

Outdoor

75

11%

31%53%

100%

7%

Dishwashers

18

Other2

65

10%

Public

14

1%

Non-revenue(incl. losses)

109

16%

Indoor

285

42%

Note: detail shown for Metro area only due to

data availability

Public supply use overview


GA public supply use was slightly above average in 2000

0

100

200

300

MD

185

GA MO AR SC NC FL WI KS VT MS IL MIMT DE NY IN SD WV NJ VA PR MN RI ND NHNV ID VIWY

Ground water

2000US Nat'l

average:179

GPCD

CO NE AL AZ IAOK WA OR CA NM LA AK

Surface water

1. Per capita water consumption = consumption of total public supply water divided by # of people served by public supply water in stateNote: Public supply refers to water withdrawn by public and private water suppliers for domestic, commercial, industrial, or thermoelectric-power purposesSource: US Geological Survey 2000 data

Higher demands in the West due to agriculture irrigation

Public supply water use per capita1


GA: 185 GPCD

US avg: 179


Water usage in Metro Atlanta lower than many metro cities across the US in study by Georgia EPD

1. State average; data not available for individual cities in ALNote: Overall per capita is calculated by dividing total gallons of water produced by water provider by the population servedSource: Georgia EPD analysis

Georgia EPD report overall per capita public supply water use across metro cities in gallons per capita per day

105128

134139

150151

155157158

163164167

175190

206213

218233

252254

0 50 100 150 200 250

Per capita water usage(GPD)

LaGrange, GeorgiaLos Angeles, CA

Metro Atlanta, GeorgiaSt. Johns River Water M’ment Dist, FL

San Antonio, TX

Las Vegas, NV

New York City, NYPortland, ORSeattle, WA

Charlotte, NCDenver, CO

Columbia, SCAlabama1

Phoenix, AZDallas, TX

Macon, Georgia

Albuquerque, NMNW Florida Water M’ment Dist, FL

Tuscon, AZMiami, FL



Total per capita public supply water use by county in 2006

154

95

121138142

202

160

130115

143127

140124126

241

0

90

180

270

Barto

w

Che

roke

e

Cla

yton

Cob

b

Cow

eta

DeK

alb

Dou

glas

Faye

tte

Fors

yth

Fulto

n

Gw

inne

tt

Hal

l

Hen

ry

Paul

ding

Roc

kdal

e

Wtd avg1 :151 GPCD

County

Water usage (GPCD)

1. Weighted average based on populationNote: Total adjusted per capita usage includes all public supply demand including residential, commercial, industrial, irrigation, and non-revenue water divided by total populationSource: Metro North Georgia District Plan (May 09)

Total per capita public supply water usage in 2006



Residential per capita water usage by county in 2006

68 61 68 62 65 66 63 66 7078

6861 62 66 67

1716

1416 15 15

1115

3024

17

14 15 12 13

0

30

60

90

120

85

Barto

w

77

Che

roke

e

81

Cla

yton

78

Cob

b

79C

owet

a81

DeK

alb

74

Dou

glas

81

Faye

tte

100

Fors

yth

101

Fulto

n

85

Gw

inne

tt

Wtd avg1 :84 GPCD

Hal

l

77

Hen

ry

78

Paul

ding

75

Roc

kdal

e

OutdoorIndoor

County

Water usage (GPCD)

80

Residential per capita water usage by indoor vs outdoor use in 2006

1. Weighted average based on populationNote: Residential usage for public supplied water and population only, with outdoor usage defined as all use above the winter minimum levelSource: Metro North Georgia District Plan (May 09)



Residential indoor water usage by county in 2006

67666261

68

78

7066

63666562

68

61

68

0

20

40

60

80

100

Barto

w

Che

roke

e

Cla

yton

Cob

b

Cow

eta

DeK

alb

Dou

glas

Faye

tte

Fors

yth

Fulto

n

Gw

inne

tt

Hal

l

Hen

ry

Paul

ding

Roc

kdal

e

County

Water usage (GPCD)

Residential indoor per capita water usage in 2006

1. Weighted average based on population2. Typical indoor residential usage reported by AWWANote: Residential usage for public supplied water and population onlySource: Metro North Georgia District Plan (May 09), American Water Works Association

Wtd avg1:69 GPCDTypical usage2:69 GPCD



Residential outdoor water usage by county in 2006

1312

1514

17

24

30

15

11

151516

14

1617

0

10

20

30

Wtd avg1:20 GPCD

Barto

w

Che

roke

e

Cla

yton

Cob

b

Paul

ding

Roc

kdal

e

County

Cow

eta

DeK

alb

Dou

glas

Faye

tte

Fors

yth

Fulto

n

Gw

inne

tt

Hal

l

Hen

ry

Water usage (GPCD)Residential outdoor per capita water usage in 2006

1. Weighted average based on populationNote: Residential usage for public supplied water and population only, with outdoor usage defined as all use above the winter minimum levelSource: Metro North Georgia District Plan (May 09)



Total per capita public supply water usage in 2007 and 2008 recorded by EPD during Level IV drought restriction

1. Weighted average based on populationNote 1: Total adjusted per capita usage includes all public supply demand including residential, commercial, industrial, irrigation, and non-revenue water divided by total populationNote 2: 2007 and 2008 per capita usage not directly comparable to 2006 per capita usage as indicated in Metro North GA District Plan due to varying data sources for water usage dataSource: GA EPD

Total per capita public supply water usage in 2007 and 2008

135

86

105112112

137

119

10195

10599

121

9999

178

117

73

949390

114

8584858876

9791

83

142

0

50

100

150

2002007

County

Water usage (GPCD)

Wtd avg1 07:116 GPCDWtd avg1 08:96 GPCD

2008

Roc

kdal

e

Paul

ding

Hen

ry

Hal

l

Gw

inne

tt

Fulto

n

Fors

yth

Faye

tte

Dou

glas

DeK

alb

Cow

eta

Cla

yton

Cob

b

Barto

w

Che

roke

e



Large variation in public supply use among GA counties

0

100

200

300

400

Metro areaAll of GA

2005GA avg

158

County

GPCDPublic supply water use per capita1 (2005)

1. "Public supply" use divided by population served by public supply , by county 2. Metro average reported in Metro Water Plan, May 2009 and by EPD; GA average reported by USGSSource: USGS "Water Use in Georgia by County for 2005; and Water-Use Trends, 1980–2005"; Metro North GA Water Supply and Water Conservation Management Plan (May 2009)

Average (GPCD)2Average (GPCD)2

151 158



Substantial usage reduction achieved in 2008 and 2009

Jan Feb Mar JuneMayApr July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec

200720082009500

600

700

800

900

MGD

Recent progress

1. Values shown are 3-month rolling average withdrawalsNote: Data shows total withdrawals by county by month (to include all end uses); analysis shown for 55 county area due to data availabilitySource: GA EPD data

GA EPD usage data from former 55 county Level 4 drought response area1

Usage ban put in effect

-7%

-19%


Slightly higher reductions achieved in Metro area counties

Note: Analysis shown for 55 county area due to data availability; 3-month rolling average per capita use shownSource: GA EPD data from former 55 county Level 4 drought response area; Cobb County Water System data

Recent progress

GA EPD data for 15 Metro ATL counties

GA EPD data for 15 Metro ATL counties

2009200820072006

400

500

600

700

MGD

-10%

-20%

Jan

Feb

Mar Ap

r

May

June July

Aug

Sep

Oct

Nov

Dec

Cobb County usage data(per capita)

Cobb County usage data(per capita)

120

150

180

90

GPCD

-13%

-23%

Jan

Feb

Mar Ap

r

May

June July

Aug

Sep

Oct

Nov

Dec

Water Contingency Planning Task ForceAppendix III

Detailed description of options evaluated (including rationale, cost, yield, timing, and implementation feasibility)

December 2009

1144200-01 TF Appendix III.ppt

Overview of key options: Conserve

Conserve• Conservation efficiency programs (eg, fixture retrofits)• Reuse• Pricing• Loss Reduction


Descriptions of measures evaluated in each bundle (I)Measures Method of Implementation Description

Toilet retrofits Current program (baseline)Increased incentive rebate program

Direct install program

Retrofit on resaleBuilding plumbing code requirement

Offer $50 rebate per installation of low-flow toilets in homesOffer $25 additional on top of current rebate ($75 rebate per installation of low-flow toilets in homes)Utility provider to contract with plumbing contractors to replace toilets in all homes under jurisdiction free of charge to customerRegulation requiring replacement of toilets prior to resale of propertyCodes requiring all homes to install low-flow toilets by deadline

Showerheads and faucets

Current give-away program (baseline)Increased incentive rebate programDirect install program

Retrofit on resaleUpdated plumbing codes

Offer free showerheads and faucet aerators to customers upon requestContinue distribution of kits; customers get $20 credit on first month's billUtility provider to replace toilets in all homes free of charge, and customers receive $20 credit on first month's billRegulation requiring replacement of toilets prior to resale of propertyCodes requiring all homes to switch to low-flow toilets by deadline

Residential clothes washers

No current program (baseline)Washer rebate programWasher program with increased rebate

No current programOffer $100 rebate for replacement of efficient clothes washer in homesOffer $200 rebate for replacement of efficient clothes washer in homes

Multi-family metering

Current ordinance program (baseline)

Retrofit 50% of existing non-submeteredcomplexesRetrofit 100% of existing non-submetered complexes

Local ordinance that require all new multi-family buildings to include sub-meters that bill for volume of water useOrdinance to require retrofitting of submeters in 50% of existing multi-family complexes that have not yet been retrofittedOrdinance to require retrofitting of submeters in 100% of existing multi-family complexes that have not yet been retrofitted

1a

1b

1c

2a

Residential retrofits

Sub-metering and water

audits

1

2

BundlesBundles

I. Conserve Efficiency programs



Descriptions of measures evaluated in each bundle (II)Measures Method of Implementation Description

Spray rinse valves

Education program (baseline)

Valve rebate program


Education program to encourage restaurant/commercial kitchen to use spray rinse valvesOffer $50 rebate for replacement of spray rinse valves in restaurants/commercial kitchensUtility provider to install 1.6 gpm spray nozzles in restaurants/commercial kitchens

Cooling towers

No current program (baseline)

Cooling tower rebate program

Cooling tower standards

No current program

Provide rebate program to commercial users to replace cooling towers, which can increase cycles of concentration from 2 to 5 and can save ~40% of water

Required ordinance to increase water efficiency of cooling towers, and increase cycles of concentration from 2 to 5, which can save ~40% of water

Watering restrictions

3 days/week schedule (baseline)

No daytime watering

1 day/week watering schedule

Ordinance that allows watering only 3 days per week

Watering ordinance that bans daytime watering

Watering ordinance that allows watering only 1 day per week

Rain sensor irrigation

Current state law (baseline)

Retrofit 25% of existing systems without rain sensors


State law requires rain sensor shut-off switches on all new irrigation systems

Ordinance to require retrofitting of rain sensor shut-off switches on 25% of existing irrigation systems that do not yet have rain sensors

Ordinance to require retrofitting of rain sensor shut-off switches on 50% of existing irrigation systems that do not yet have rain sensors

3a

3b

4a

4b

Commercial retrofits

and process improve-

ments

3

Outdoor water usage

reduction

4

BundlesBundles



Efficiency measures considered (I)Measures Method of Implementation Rationale Key Challenges Timing

Toilet retrofits

Increased incentive rebate program


Retrofit on resale

• Provide consumer with choice to participate in program

• Optimize penetration in market

• Expedite adoption rate via resale market and optimize penetration

• Ensuring compliance with program and whether rebate increase will achieve anticipated increase in participation

• Added enforcement cost to utility to ensure compliance with program

• Utility liability for direct installs• Objection from home owners needing to

retrofit homes prior to sale

3 year program, 100% completion by 2012


Increased incentive rebate program






• Utility liability for direct installs



Washer rebate program

Washer program with increased rebate

• Provide consumer with incentive to participate in program

• Increase adoption rate and penetration in market

• Extremely difficult to get participation• Added rebate cost to utility to provide

increased incentive• Ensuring compliance with program and

whether rebate increase will achieve anticipated increase in participation

10 year program, ~30% completion by 2012


Retrofit 50% of existing non-submetered complexes

Retrofit 100% of existing non-submetered complexes

• Retrofit existing homes in addition to new development to capture major savings



• Objection from apartment complexes, building owners, and other stakeholders


1a

1b

1c

2a



Efficiency measures considered (II)

Measures Method of Implementation Rationale Key Challenges Timing

Spray rinse valves

Valve rebate program



• Optimize penetration in market• Improve business processes in

long-term

• Ensuring compliance with program


• Utility liability for direct installs


Cooling towers

Cooling tower rebate program

Cooling tower standards

• Provide consumer with choice to participate in rebate program

• Optimize penetration in market• Improve business processes in

long-term


• Objection from commercial community


Watering restrictions

No daytime watering

1 day/week schedule

• Reduce discretionary outdoor water usage

• Ensuring compliance with program• Added enforcement cost to utility to ensure

compliance with program• Compromise on beautification of greenspace





• Retrofit existing irrigation systems in addition to new irrigation systems to capture more savings

• Increase penetration in market

• Ensuring compliance with program• Added enforcement cost to utility to ensure

compliance with program


3a

3b

4a

4b


Conservation efficiency programs offer attractive cost efficiency levels

Bundles Measures evaluatedIncremental yield

in 2012 (MGD)Incremental yield in

2035 (MGD)

Residential retrofits 5-28

2-3

3-8

10-23

Sub-metering and water audits

3-27

2-3

3-7Commercial retrofits and process improvements

Spray rinse valvesCooling tower rebate/standards

$100 - $200

10-27Outdoor water usage reduction

Average cost efficiency

($/MG)

Toilet retrofitShowerheads and faucetsClothes washers

$350-$400$250-$350

$1000-$1100

Multi-family sub-metering $160 - $170

Watering restrictionsRain sensor controllers

$10$50-$70

1

2

3

4


20 – 62 MGDTotal: 18 – 65 MGD

xx – xx MGDMore aggressive program (eg.

incentive-driven implementation)Most aggressive program (eg.

mandated implementation)

Key question becomes degree of mandatory measures (which increase yield) versus incentive-driven approach

Source: Technical Advisory Panel analysis



Cost/benefit estimates of water efficiency programs

Measure Method of ImplementationPenetration

(%)

Yield in 2035

(MGD)

Yield in 2012

(MGD)

Total cost2

($M)

Toilet retrofits –1.6

14.6

–1.2

10.0

–0.61.9

–1.73.3


–$8.5

$82.3

–2.6

15.6

–2.5

11.3


No current program (baseline)Washer rebate programIncreased washer rebates

0%5%

15%

–0.20.6

–$3.7

$40.5

–$12.4$34.2

–1.73.3

–$5.1

$10.2

–~ $1100~ $1000

3 year implementation program


10%20%

100%

Current give-away program (baseline)Increased incentive rebate programDirect install program

15%25%

100%

–~ $350~ $250


Current ordinance program (baseline)Retrofit 50% existing homesRetrofit 100% existing homes

0%50%

100%

–~ $160~ $170


Avg unit

cost1

($/MG) Timing

Current rebate program (baseline)Increased incentive rebate programDirect install program

–~ $400~ $350


Incremental water savings to programs in current District Plan

1a

1b

1c

2a

1. Based upon 50 years of lifetime yield for all measures, yield by 2012 2. Total cost in 2010 dollarsSource: Technical Advisory Panel analysis



Cost/benefit estimates of water efficiency programs

Measure Method of ImplementationPenetrati

on (%)

Yield in 2035

(MGD)

Yield in 2012

(MGD)

Total cost2

($M)

Spray rinse valves

–0.31.8

–2.75.4

–7.2

21.5

–3.05.9

Cooling towers

–$0.4$3.0

–0.72.2

–2.75.4

–4.9

14.6


Current state law (baseline)Retrofit 25% existing irrigation systemsRetrofit 50% existing irrigation systems

0%25%50%

–5.28.1

–$5.1

$10.3

Water restrictions

Current 3 days/week schedule (baseline)No daytime watering1 day/week schedule

0%5%

15%

–~ $50~ $70

–$8.4

$16.8

–$1.5$3.0


–~ $10~ $10


10%25%

100%

No current program (baseline)Cooling tower auditsCooling tower standards

0%25%50%

–~ $170~ $170


Avg unit Cost

($/MG) Timing

Current education program (baseline)Rebate programDirect install program

–~ $120~ $110


Incremental water savings to programs in current District Plan

3a

3b

4a

4b

1. Based upon 50 years of lifetime yield for all measures, yield by 2012 2. Total cost in 2010 dollarsSource: Technical Advisory Panel analysis


Potential savings from retrofit to1.28 gallons per flush (gpf) high-efficiency toilet

Total Demand = 680 MGD

% toiletusage

addressable

40%% waterreduction

70%% adoptionof program

90%

• 53% of total is residential use• 16% of residential is toilet use

40% of housing stock still contains 3.5 or 5 gpf toilets 70% reduction in

water usage by switching to low-

flow toilets

90% adoption of program means replacement of ~ 3.5

million toilets. Back in the 1990s, NYC replaced ~1.3

million toilets in 3 years

Estimatedpotentialsavings:15 MGD

Totalpotentialsavings:16 MGD

Addressabletoilet

usage:23 MGD

Totaltoilet

usage:58 MGD

Source: Technical advisory panel analysis



Toilet retrofits (I)Method of implementation: increased incentive rebate program

Current plan in Metro District: current implementation is 2% per year for 5 years at $50 rebate,

Yield

Cost

Cost categoryCost category

Rebate/incentivesEquipm't/installationMarketing /adminEnforcementCost to customer

Total cost to utility:

LogicLogic

Rebate of $75/toilet, increase of $25 (50% increase in rebate amount)No equipment and installation cost for utility, born by customer12% admin cost of total cost to utility (8% + 4% contingency)No enforcement costCost to customer to install toilets

Cost ($M)Cost ($M)

$7.7-

$0.9-

$4.7

$8.5

AssumptionAssumption

Usage in consumption category% addressable of total usage% savings from conservation program% targeted (incremental adoption rate)= Water savings (MGD)

LogicLogic

680MGD*53%(residential)*80%(indoor)*20%(toilets)40% of housing stock contain 5 or 3.5 gpf toiletsSwitching to 1.28 gpf toilets provides ~60% reduction10% increase in adoption rate from current program

ValueValue

58 MGD40%70%10%

1.6 MGD

Stakeholder sensitivity Reasons Permits required

Requires legislation

No significant sensitivities noted No NoCost-effective measures with little negative

societal/environmental impact

Util

ity


Stakeholder sensitivity


Toilet retrofits (II)Method of implementation: direct install program

Current plan in Metro District: current implementation is 2% per year for 5 years at $50 rebate,

Yield

Cost




LogicLogic

No rebate cost providedInstallation cost at $225/install for utility (additional cost of $175/toilet)25% admin cost of total utility cost (20% + 5% contingency)No enforcement costNo customer cost, utility carries all cost of program

Cost ($M)Cost ($M)

-$65.9$16.5

--

$82.3



LogicLogic

680MGD*53%(residential)*80%(indoor)*20%(toilets)40% of housing stock contain 5 or 3.5 gpf toiletsSwitching to 1.28 gpf toilets provides ~60% reduction90% increase in adoption rate from current program

ValueValue

58 MGD40%70%90%

14.6MGD





Util

ity




Showerheads and faucets (I)Method of implementation: increased incentive rebate program

Current plan in Metro District: voluntary program at current implementation level of 15% over a 10-year program period

Yield

Cost




LogicLogic

Cost of $20 credit on first month's bill per accountNo equipment or installation cost for utility, born by customer40% admin cost of total utility cost (25%+15% contingency)No enforcement costCost to customer to retrofit showerheads and faucets

Cost ($M)Cost ($M)

$2.2-

$1.5-

$2.0

$3.7



LogicLogic

680MGD*53%(residential)*80%(indoor)*41%(showerhead/faucet)40% of housing stock contain 2 gpm showerhead/faucetsSwitching to 1.5 gpm retrofits provides ~25% reduction10% increase in adoption rate from current program

ValueValue

118 MGD40%25%10%

1.2 MGD





Util

ity




Showerheads and faucets (II)Method of implementation: direct install program

Current plan in Metro District: voluntary program at current implementation level of 15% over a 10-year program period

Yield

Cost




LogicLogic

No rebate cost providedInstallation at $45/install for utility, plus $20 credit on customer first month bill50% admin cost of total utility costNo enforcement costNo customer cost, utility carries all cost of program

Cost ($M)Cost ($M)

-$24.7$15.8

--

$40.5



LogicLogicValueValue





Util

ity

680MGD*53%(residential)*80%(indoor)*41%(showerhead/faucet)40% of housing stock contain 2 gpm showerhead/faucetsSwitching to 1.5 gpm retrofits provides ~25% reduction85% increase in adoption rate from current program

118 MGD40%25%85%

10 MGD




Residential clothes washers (I)Method of implementation: washer rebate program

Current plan in Metro District: no current program

Yield

Cost




LogicLogic

Cost of $100 per rebateNo equipment or installation cost for utility, born by customer40% admin cost of total utility cost (25% + 15% contingency)No enforcement costTotal cost of washer at $300 each, additional cost to customer = $200 each

Cost ($M)Cost ($M)

$7.4-

$5.0-

$37.2

$12.4



LogicLogic

680MGD*53%(residential)*80%(indoor)*18%(laundry)60% of housing stock contains high usage washersSwitching to efficient washers provides ~40% reduction5% increase in adoption rate from current program

ValueValue

52 MGD60%40%5%

0.6 MGD





Util

ity




Residential clothes washers (II)Method of implementation: increased washer rebate program

Current plan in Metro District: no current program

Yield

Cost




LogicLogic

Cost of $200 per rebateNo equipment or installation cost for utility, born by customer40% admin cost of total utility cost (25% + 15% contingency)No enforcement costTotal cost of washer at $300 each, additional cost to customer = $100 each

Cost ($M)Cost ($M)

$20.5-

$13.7-

$40.9

$34.2



LogicLogic

680MGD*53%(residential)*80%(indoor)*18%(laundry)60% of housing stock contains high usage washersSwitching to efficient washers provides ~40% reduction15% increase in adoption rate from current program

ValueValue

52 MGD60%40%15%

1.9 MGD





Util

ity




Multi-family sub-metering (I)Method of implementation: incentive targeting retrofit 50% of existing non-submetered buildings

Current plan in Metro District: current program is local ordinance to install sub-meters in all new multi-family buildings

Yield

Cost




LogicLogic

No cost of rebateRetrofit cost of $50,000 per complex (with replacement every 15 years)20% admin cost of total utility cost (15% + 5% contingency)No enforcement costCustomer cost of $2,500 per complex

Cost ($M)Cost ($M)

-$4.1$1.0

-$0.2

$5.1



LogicLogic

680MGD*13%(multi-family)25% of buildings not sub-meteredSwitching to submetering provides ~15% reduction50% increase in adoption rate from current program

ValueValue

88 MGD25%15%50%

1.7 MGD





Util

ity




Multi-family sub-metering (II)Method of implementation: mandate to retrofit100% of existing non-submetered buildings

Current plan in Metro District: current program is local ordinance to install sub-meters in all new multi-family buildings

Yield

Cost




LogicLogic

No cost of rebateRetrofit cost of $50,000 per complex (with replacement every 15 years)20% admin cost of total utility cost (15% + 5% contingency)No enforcement costCustomer cost of $2,500 per complex

Cost ($M)Cost ($M)

-$8.2$2.0

-$0.4

$10.2



LogicLogic

680MGD*13%(multi-family)25% of buildings not sub-meteredSwitching to submetering provides ~15% reduction100% increase in adoption rate from current program

ValueValue

88 MGD25%15%100%

3.3 MGD





Util

ity




Spray rinse valves (I)Method of implementation: increased incentive rebate program

Current plan in Metro District: current education program only, with an implementation level of ~10% over a 10-year program

Yield

Cost




LogicLogic

Rebate of $50/valveNo equipment and installation cost for utility, born by customer40% admin cost of total cost to utilityNo enforcement costCost to customer to install spray rinse valves

Cost ($M)Cost ($M)

$0.2-

$0.2-

$0.3

$0.4



LogicLogic

680MGD*25%(commercial)*80%(indoor)*10% (rinsing usage)40% of commercial kitchens/restaurants eligibleSwitching to pre-rinse spray valves provides ~35% reduction15% increase in adoption rate from current program

ValueValue

14 MGD40%35%15%

0.3 MGD





Util

ity




Spray rinse valves (II)Method of implementation: direct install program

Current plan in Metro District: current education program only, with an implementation level of ~10% over a 10-year program

Yield

Cost




LogicLogic

No rebate cost providedInstallation cost at $200/install for utility50% admin cost of total utility costNo enforcement costNo customer cost, utility carries all cost of program

Cost ($M)Cost ($M)

-$1.1$1.9

--

$3.0



LogicLogic

680MGD*25%(commercial)*80% (indoor)*10%(rinsing usage)40% of commercial kitchens/restaurants eligibleSwitching to pre-rinse spray valves provides ~35% reduction90% increase in adoption rate from current program

ValueValue

14 MGD40%35%90%

1.8 MGD





Util

ity




Cooling towers (I)Method of implementation: incentive rebate program to retrofit cooling towers

Current plan in Metro District: no current program in place

Yield

Cost




LogicLogic

No rebate cost providedInstallation cost for utilityCost for increased monitoring and auditing of cooling towersNo enforcement costCustomer cost to improve cooling process with higher cycles of concentration

Cost ($M)Cost ($M)

-$5.0$3.4

-$3.4

$8.4



LogicLogic

680MGD*25%(commercial)*20%(cooling towers)80% of cooling towers are eligibleIncrease from 2 to 5 cycles of concentration gives ~40% reduction25% increase in adoption rate from current program

ValueValue

34 MGD80%40%25%

2.7 MGD





Util

ity




Cooling towers (II)Method of implementation: ordinance for higher cooling tower standards for top 50% of users

Current plan in Metro District: no current program in place

Yield

Cost




LogicLogic

No rebate cost providedInstallation cost for utilityNo marketing/admin costCost of increased monitoring and enforcement to ensure standardsCustomer cost to improve cooling process with higher cycles of concentration

Cost ($M)Cost ($M)

-$7.1

-$9.7$6.7

$16.8



LogicLogic

680MGD*25%(commercial)*20%(cooling towers)80% of cooling towers are eligibleIncrease from 2 to 4 cycles of concentration gives ~40% reduction50% increase in adoption rate from current program

ValueValue

34 MGD80%40%50%

5.4 MGD





Util

ity




Watering restrictions (I)Method of implementation: no daytime watering

Current plan in Metro District: current outdoor water use schedule since 2003 restricts wateringto 3 days / week for all residential/commercial users

Yield

Cost




LogicLogic

No rebate costNo equipment or installation costNo marketing/admin costEnforcement cost of $100k per provider for the top 15 providersNo customer cost

Cost ($M)Cost ($M)

---

$1.5-

$1.5



LogicLogic

1100MGD*[(53%(res.)*20%(outdoor)+25%(com.)*10%(outdoor)]100% of outdoor water usage potentially addressableWatering restriction able to provide ~5% reduction100% adoption rate from current program

ValueValue

143 MGD100%5%

100%7.2 MGD





Util

ity




Watering restrictions (II)Method of implementation: 1 day/week watering schedule

Current plan in Metro District: current outdoor water use schedule since 2003 restricts wateringto 3 days / week for all residential/commercial users

Yield

Cost




LogicLogic

No rebate costNo equipment or installation costNo marketing/admin costEnforcement cost of $200k per provider for the top 15 providersNo customer cost

Cost ($M)Cost ($M)

---

$3.0-

$3.0



LogicLogic

1100MGD*[(53%(res.)*20%(outdoor)+25%(com.)*10%(outdoor)]100% of outdoor water usage potentially addressableWatering restriction able to provide ~15% reduction100% adoption rate from current program

ValueValue

143 MGD100%15%100%

21.5MGD





Util

ity




Rain sensor irrigation (I)Method of implementation: retrofit 25% of existing irrigation systems

Current plan in Metro District: current program is state law requiring rain shut-off sensors installed on all new irrigation systems for residential/commercial

Yield

Cost




LogicLogic

No cost of rebateRetrofit cost of $100 per irrigation system20% admin cost of total utility cost (15% + 5% contingency)No enforcement costNo customer cost

Cost ($M)Cost ($M)

-$4.1$1.0

--

$5.1



LogicLogic

680MGD*[(53%(res.)*20%(outdoor)+25%(com.)*10%(outdoor)]90% of irrigation systems do not yet have rain sensorsInstalling rain sensor irrigation systems provides ~15% reduction25% increase in adoption rate from current program

ValueValue

88 MGD90%15%25%

3.0 MGD





Util

ity




Rain sensor irrigation (II)Method of implementation: retrofit 50% of existing irrigation systems

Current plan in Metro District: current program is state law requiring rain shut-off sensors installed on all new irrigation systems for residential/commercial

Yield

Cost




LogicLogic

No cost of rebateRetrofit cost of $100 per irrigation system20% admin cost of total utility cost (15% + 5% contingency)No enforcement costNo customer cost

Cost ($M)Cost ($M)

-$8.2$2.1

--

$10.3



LogicLogic

680MGD*[(53%(res.)*20%(outdoor)+25%(com.)*10%(outdoor)]90% of irrigation systems do not yet have rain sensorsInstalling rain sensor irrigation systems provides ~15% reduction50% increase in adoption rate from current program

ValueValue

88 MGD90%15%50%

5.9 MGD





Util

ity




Water conservation programs: background

Total of 35 conservation measures considered qualitatively and/or quantitatively– Measures consolidated from Metro North Georgia District Plans (2009 and 2003

plans), Task Force members, stakeholders and case studies from other regions

For ease of discussion, measures organized into 6 bundles

1. Residential retrofits2. Sub-metering and water audits3. Commercial retrofits and process improvements4. Outdoor water usage reduction

5. Localized water recycling capability

6. Enablers to encourage conservation

Quantitatively evaluated a subset (with highest-potential

impact) of these measures

Not quantitatively evaluated due to lower impact, but should be considered by local gov't on

individual basis

Not quantitatively evaluated but addressed in recommendations



Bundles of measures considered and evaluated (I)

Options

• Efficient fixtures– Low-flow toilets– Low-flow showerheads and faucets– Efficient clothes washers– Efficient dishwashers

• Retrofit kits (containing low-flow showerheads, faucet aerators, toilet leak-detection dye tablets, and pamphlet on water conservation)

• Building code requirements to install hot water pipe insulation• 'Hot water on demand' system to recycle water sitting in pipes back to water heater

• Regulations on sub-metering in multi-family buildings• Residential water audits• Commercial water audits

• Efficient fixtures– Low-flow spray rinse nozzles in restaurants– Low-flow toilets and urinals in public spaces or new developments– Washing machines in laundromats– Self-closing faucets in high-use restrooms– Air-cooled ice machines in hotels

• Cooling tower audit and replacement to improve cooling process and reduce water use• Cooling tower metering to measure makeup and bleed-off water of facilities• Water credit program where water providers would provide credit rebate based on

avoided cost of new water capacity for users who install water efficient equipment

Residential retrofits

Sub-metering and water audits

5

67

9

16

8

1718

BundlesBundles

Commercial retrofits and

process improvements

10

1

2

3

1-4

11-15

Quantitatively evaluated in detail



Options

• Rain sensor shut off devices/high-tech irrigation controllers• Permanent irrigation codes and time-of-day watering restrictions• Xeriscape or other native/water-conserving species landscaping• Trigger shut-off valves and hose timers• Irrigation audits for large turf areas to ensure property irrigation system installation• Prohibit HOA or CC&R conditions that mandate use of turf in developments• Rainwater harvesting via barrels and cisterns• Public/private swimming pool covers to prevent evaporative loss

• Drive-through car washes to install equipment to recycle water• Water recycle equipm't in X-ray machine for process water, developer, filter solution• Prohibit water use in non-recycling water fountains, once-through cooling processes• Laundry recycle systems at commercial laundries

• Public awareness and participation programs– Landscape training class, Xeriscape demonstration garden

• School education and targeted high-user education programs• Water budgets and water saving goals/ordinances• Tax incentives or other low-interest rate loans• New home efficiency award programs for "Green Builder" developers (WaterSense)

'Enablers' to encourage

conservation

Localized water

recycling capability

Outdoor water usage

reduction

Bundles of measures considered and evaluated (II)

20

222324

19

21

2526

27282930

31

3233

34

35

BundlesBundles

4

5

6

Quantitatively evaluated in detail



Outdoor

21%(76)

79%(284)

Indoor

18%(50)

Faucets

18%(50)

Laundry

23%(65)

Showers/Baths

6%(18)

Dishwashers

16%(47) Other2

Toilets

19%(55)Losses1

15%(102 MGD)

Commercial

25%(170 MGD)

Industrial/public

6%(41 MGD)

53%(360 MGD)

Residential (Domestic)

Efficiency measures evaluated address all major water consumption categories

Metro Water District water use profileMetro Water District water use profile

Total = 680 Million Gallons/Day

Residential retrofits can address 25% of total water usage

360 MGD

284 MGD


1. Includes apparent losses (meter inaccuracies, data errors, etc) and real losses (leakage, breaks, overflows, etc) 2. "Other" not defined in Metro plan – likely includes drinking, food preparation, etc.Source: Metro North Georgia Water Supply and Water Conservation Management Plan (May 2009)



Water conservation programs: evaluation and prioritization

Set of 35 efficiency measures considered; quantitatively evaluated a subset– those affecting the biggest water use consumption categories and with the highest potential water savings impact 1

• Evaluated measures with water savings potential incremental to 2009 Water District Plan, leveraging that plan's underlying assumptions and baseline data

• Measures not quantified offer lower potential impact (based on type of consumption addressed) and their potential can be highly utility-specific

Two general methods of implementation were considered: incentive-driven and mandated• Incentive-driven implementation via rebates and credits on bills• Mandated implementation via ordinances and direct installs by utilities

Only those options that were quantitatively evaluated will be presented for Task Force prioritization and comment

• Assume that cost and yield data are required inputs for Task Force member prioritization

Measures not quantified should be considered by individual utilities and local governments for their applicability and local potential

1. Highest water savings impact also confirmed with evaluations from the 2009 Metro North Georgia Water District PlanSource: Metro North Georgia Water District Plan (May 2009); Technical Advisor Panel, Ga Water Utility Manager interviews


Conserve option evaluations defined and categorizedby the two methods of implementation

Potential water savings in 2012Potential water savings in 2012

Conserve optionsConserve options

Toilet retrofits




Spray rinse valves

Cooling towers

Water restrictions


Pricing

Loss reduction

Total

Incentive-driven implementationIncentive-driven implementation Mandated implementationMandated implementation

Effi

cien

cy p

rogr

ams

2.6 MGD

2.5 MGD

0.2 – 0.6 MGD

1.7 MGD

0.7 MGD

2.7 MGD

-

5.2 – 8.1 MGD

4 - 7 MGD

-

20 – 26 MGD

15.6 MGD

11.3 MGD

-

3.3 MGD

2.2 MGD

5.4 MGD

4.9 – 14.6 MGD

-

-

8 – 10 MGD

51 – 62 MGD


Method of implementation selected based on expected target market penetration of conservation programs

Selection of method of implementation for given conservation option based on starting point of a more accepted, incentive-driven approach incremental to district plan (eg, higher rebate than provided by current program, larger credit on water bill)

If incentive-driven approach alone incapable of reaching most aggressive market penetration for option, then mandated approach evaluated to meet adoption rate targets

• Mandates considered under context of feasibility and implementation sensitivity – else a more aggressive incentive-based option considered at lower market penetration rate

Note that some conservation options are incentive-driven or mandate-based by nature– Eg, watering restrictions, such as no daytime watering or one day per week watering

schedule, can only be mandate-based, with maximum adoption achieved by 100% compliance through strict enforcement

– Eg, conservation-based pricing is by nature incentive-driven, as behavioral adjustments to pricing signal driven heavily by financial incentive to conserve


Conserve options total potential water savingsin 2012 under each scenario

ScenarioScenario

Options considered by TF incremental to district plan

With additional aggressive pricing program

With additional outdoor residential water ban

Base option (scenario 1) program descriptions

Base option (scenario 1) program descriptions

• Toilet retrofit to 1.28 gpf HETs• Retrofit to 1.5 gpm showerheads• Retrofit to efficient clothes

washers with a water factor of 4 or less

• Install meters on existing un-submetered multi-family buildings

• Retrofit to low flow spray rinse valves

• Increase cooling tower from 2 to 5 cycles of concentration

• Outdoor water usage restricted to no daytime watering or one day/week water schedule

• Install rain sensors on all existing irrigation systems that do not yet have them

1

2

3

Potential savings considered in 2012 on top

of current district plan

Potential savings considered in 2012 on top

of current district plan

26 - 79 MGD

43 – 96 MGD

26 – 128 MGD

Pricing savings of 4-7 MGD (scenario 1) increase by 17 MGD

Total outdoor savings of 14-30 MGD (scenario 1)by 49 MGD

Source: Metro North Georgia Water Planning District- May 09 Plan, Technical Advisory Panel analysis

I. Conserve Reuse


Water re-use: option descriptions

OptionOption

Indirect potable reuse

Direct potable reuse

Non-potable reuse

Grey water reuse

DescriptionDescription

Recapture treated wastewater discharges downstream from originalpoint of discharge to replenish drinking water supplies, then pump water to upstream communities critically impacted by ruling

Treat wastewater to extremely high standards, then bring it directly back to the drinking water supply system without any dilution with nature

Use treated wastewater for non-potable uses such as irrigation of golf courses, parks, or for use in cooling plant processes

Localized purple pipes to directly reuse grey water (non-toilet household water such as shower and sink water) for non-potable reuse such as toilets



Option

Average Yield

(MGD)

Cost efficiency

($/MG)Total cost

($M)

Capital cost ($M)

6-county solution

4-county solution (excl Hall, Forsyth)


Irrigation of all outdoor usage

For golf courses, parks only 1

$1,0705

$1,0005

Retrofit on existing homes

$1,700

$2,800

$2,000

$5,600

$14,400

$111

~70-754

3

$11,0002

$2,000

$14,800

$112

3-7

$3,300~20-25 $9,000 -$27,0003

$10,000

Timing (years)

~250

205

Localized implementation at 10% of households/year

4-5

~250

$4,9005

$3,7005

3-4$8,000

Indirectpotablereuse

Non-potablereuse

(irrigation)

Directpotablereuse

Grey waterreuse

1

2

3

4

Indirect potable re-use the highest yielding,most cost-efficient re-use option

ReuseI. Conserve

1. Based on demand from top 10 irrigation users (golf courses and parks) in the 6 affected counties 2. Cost highly dependent on customer density 3. Cost highly dependent on cost of equalization, treatment, and pressure tank 4. Total of all outdoor water use (total use less winter use) for the 6 affected counties, with Cobb County at 53% to reflect their withdrawals from Chattahoochee onlySource: Technical Advisory Panel analysis; 5. Updated to include additional treatment cost (ozone treatment for water and wastewater) above and beyond EPD requirements based on feedback from water providers


Detailed cost estimates for water reuse options

OptionPump &

pipe ($M)

Water treatment

($M)

Storage space ($M)

Infra-structure

($M)

Pumping cost($M)

O&Mcost($M)

$13501

$11501

$1,7001

$15001

$2,200

$400

-

$6,800

$4,700

-

-

Total ($M)

-

$71

$71

$71

-

-

-

$2,100

$1,700

$2,400

$400

$1

Retrofit on existing homes

- $3,300 $3,300 -

$33

$24

$6,800

$14

$400

$200

$200

-

-

-

$1

$1,370

$800

$810

$14,400

$111

Total ($M)

6-county solution

4-county solution (excl Hall, Forsyth)

$2,800

$2,000

$5,600

$14,400

$111


Irrigation of all outdoor usage

For golf courses, parks only

Capital CostCapital Cost Operating CostOperating Cost


Non-potablereuse

(irrigation)

Directpotablereuse

Grey waterreuse

1

2

3

4

ReuseI. Conserve

1. Updated to include additional treatment cost (ozone treatment for water and wastewater) above and beyond EPD requirements based on feedback from water providersAll estimates have been rounded to the nearest tenth, numbers may not add up due to rounding errorsSource: Technical Advisory Panel analysis;

I. Conserve Reuse


Water reuse options considered (I)

Description of solution Rationale Key challengesTiming(years)

Expand current indirect potable reuse, which is recapturing treated wastewater discharges downstream from original point of discharge to replenish drinking water supplies– then pumping water to upstream communities critically impacted by ruling

• Already practiced on the Chattahoochee, but can be maximized in this need-based solution to directly address the gap in critically impacted counties

• No negative impact on downstream users who use indirect potable reuse

• Regional cooperation and financing

• Hall and Forsyth Counties may need to find alternate solutions since this option is much more costly for those two counties

• Public education and acceptance• Assessing any impacts on water

quality / temperature

~4-5

Treat wastewater to extremely high standards, then bring it directly back to the drinking water supply system without any dilution with nature

• Reduces surface water demands

• No negative impact on downstream users who use indirect potable reuse

• Avoid pumping and piping costs associated with indirect reuse (ie, don't have to build additional conveyance network and pumping infrastructure)

• No precedent – currently not practiced in the US

• There is no regulatory framework in place such as agreed upon treatment standards to implement option

• Public perception and acceptance is questionable-would require very high treatment standards

~3-4


Directpotablereuse

1

2


I. Conserve Reuse


Water reuse options considered (II)

Description of solution Rationale Key challengesTiming(years)

Use high quality treated wastewater for non-potable uses such as irrigation of golf courses, parks

Use secondary-quality treated wastewater for use in cooling plant processes

• Reduces use of potable water for non-potable purposes

• Disruption caused by a dual distribution system construction in developed areas may be unacceptable

• Limited number of potential large users (of cooling plant water) and very uncertain demand which limits potential yield

~3-7

Localized purple pipes to directly reuse grey water (non-toilet household water such as shower and sink water) for non-potable reuse such as toilets

• Reuse of grey water for toilets can reduce demand on potable water

• Some plumbing codes may not allow purple pipes to be installed in homes

• Potential health risk (ie. cross connections)

• Poor maintenance by home owners and lack of public oversight could result in water quality issues and concerns

Localized implementation at 10% of households/ year

Non-potablereuse

Grey waterreuse

3

4


I. Conserve ReuseReuse


Indirect potable reuse: context

Indirect potable reuse is recapturing treated wastewater, which after sufficient contact and dilution with nature, can be reused for potable purposes

• Uses water treatment technologies to return wastewater to the natural environment (eg. river, stream, or reservoir), and pumps return flow upstream to critically impacted counties to increase their drinking water supply

Indirect potable reuse is a critical component of the Metro Water District's water supply plans through 2035 and beyond

• Currently practiced in Metro Water District both in planned and incidental forms, but expansion of option can directly address the gap in critically affected counties

Incidental reuse common in Metro Water District, as several major water supply intakes on the Chattahoochee River are downstream of wastewater discharges

Planned reuse has been instituted by a number of local wastewater providers since 2003, mostly found in Gwinnett, Cobb and Clayton Counties



Indirect potable reuse: infrastructure requirement

Fulton

Forsyth

Fulton Camp Creek WRF

New Forsyth/CummingLake Lanier WWTP

Bethelview Road WRF

Flowery Branch WPCP

Water treatment plantsWastewater treatment plantsStorage locations

Buford Storage

Hall

Gainesville Linwood WRF

Gainesville Flat Creek WRF

Cobb

DeKalbAtlanta Utoy Creek WRC

Cobb RL Sutton WRF

Cobb South Cobb WRF

Gwinnett JacksonCreek WRF

Cobb NoondayCreek WRF

Atlanta SouthRiver WRC DeKalb

Polebridge WPCP

Fulton BigCreek WRFCobb Northwest

Cobb WRF

Atlanta RM Clayton WRC

Snapfinger WPCP

Reuse water withdrawalsCedarGrove

Bellwood Quarry

DeKalb ScottCandler WTP

Gwinnett CrookedCreek WRF

Fulton JohnsCreek WRF

New Southeast ForsythWRF/Forsyth Reuse

F Wayne Hill WRC

GwinnettYellowRiver WRF

21 miles

13 m

iles

21 miles

24 m

iles

17 m

iles

Gwinnett

54 m

iles

Lake Jackson

GA 20

McGinnisFerry

Pipelines


Infrastructure requirement in the 6 critically affected counties:

ReuseI. Conserve


Estimates of indirect potablereuse cost/benefit by region

RegionRegion

Hall County and Forsyth County

Gwinnett, DeKalb, Fulton and Cobb County

Total of all 6 counties

Average yield (MGD)

Average yield (MGD)

47

205

252

Cost($/MG)Cost

($/MG)

~1,400

~1,000

~1,0702

Total cost1

($B)Total cost1

($B)

1.2

3.7

4.92

ReuseI. Conserve

1. Total cost in 2010 dollars 2. Updated to include additional treatment cost (ozone treatment for water and wastewater) above and beyond EPD requirements based on feedback from water providersSource: Technical Advisory Panel analysis

I. Conserve Reuse


Non-potable reuse: top 10 irrigation users

Top 10 irrigation users (golf course and parklands) in 6 county system

CountyCounty

Gwinnett

Forsyth

Hall

Fulton

Total

Pipelines(size in inches)

Pipelines(size in inches)

10 miles (18")

24 miles (18")

3 miles (12")

5 miles (18")

7 miles (18")

Capital cost ($M)Capital cost ($M)

$24.5

$63.5

$12

$17

$117M

Peak reuse demand1Peak reuse demand1

2 MGD

3 MGD

2 MGD

2 MGD

9 MGD

Equivalent to $111M in 2010 dollars (PV terms)

Equivalent to 3 AAD-MGD (use peaking factor of 3

for irrigation use)

1. Peak demand is seasonal high months of June to AugustSource: Technical Advisory Panel analysis;

I. Conserve Reuse


Non-potable reuse: infrastructure requirement

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

Water Reclamation Plants

1 F Wayne Hill WRC 2 Cauley Creek WRF3 Fowler WRF4 Cumming WRF5 Dick Creek WRF6 Windermere WRF7 Hamptons WRF8 Flowery Branch WRF9 Laurel Springs WRF10 Skake Rag WRF (planning stage)

85

985

400

8

Existing Reuse MainsPossible Reuse Mains


Preliminary study of rainwater harvesting andstormwater reuse options suggest limited potential

1. For a single family residence: Assumes upfront capital cost of $12.5K, refurbishment cost of $800 every 7 yrs, operating cost of $500/yr over 50 years; yield of 100 – 150 gallons/day 2. Texas water development board website (http://www.twdb.state.tx.us/iwt/reuse/projects/stormwater/milestone.html)Source: Discussions between Task Force staff and Georgia Association of Water Professionals (GAWP), local rainwater harvesting system provider; Technical Advisor Panel

Rainwater harvestingRainwater harvesting

Localized capture and storage of rainwater for irrigation and non-potable indoor uses

Stormwater reuseStormwater reuse

Stormwater runoff stored in large surface ponds and used as a source of water for non-potable use, typically irrigation

Preliminary analysis suggests residential use is very expensive

• Cost efficiency of ~$10,000+/MG1

Water professionals raise serious concerns about public health implications of this option

Potential opportunity exists for commercial use – costs and yield are very site specific

Capture of stormwater partially addressed by reservoir pump-storage options evaluated by the Task Force

• River water pumped at high flows (during and after storm events) for storage and subsequent use

A full cost/benefit analysis (with the value of reducing urban runoff etc.) is outside the scope of Task Force effort

• Potentially leverage detailed study by Texas Water Development Board; report expected 12/31/092

ReuseI. Conserve


Residential water and wastewater rates in City of Atlanta are significantly higher than other US cities

19.0

43.347.0

48.4

48.5

49.4

51.9

51.9

53.8

57.362.6

75.4

77.7

80.4

86.5

123.1

0 50 100 150

Los Angeles, CA

Philadelphia, PA

St. Petersburg, FL

San Francisco, CA

City of Atlanta, GA

Honolulu, HI

San Diego, CA

Chicago, IL

Tampa, FL

Dollars per month

Boston, MA

Charlotte, NC

Jacksonville, FL

Dallas, TX

Orlando, FL

Houston, TX

Indianapolis, IN

Residential Water and Wastewater combined monthly charge for consumption of 6,750 Gallons per month

I. Conserve Conservation pricing

Source: Miami Dade County Water & Sewer Department (WASD), 2008


While city of Atlanta rates are high (driven by wastewater prices), the rest of Metro District utilities rates are lower

Residential water charges by utilities in the metro water district

Residential water charges by utilities in the metro water district

Residential wastewater charges by utilities in the metro water districtResidential wastewater charges by utilities in the metro water district

0

50

100

150

200

250

2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000 10,000 12,000 14,000 16,000

Utilities with Metro District,other than city of ATLAverageCity of ATL

Monthly Consumption (GPM)

Monthly Bill ($)

0

50

100

150

200

250Monthly Bill ($)

10,000 12,000 14,000 16,0002,000 4,000 6,000 8,000

Monthly Consumption (GPM)


Note: GPM – Gallons Per MonthSource: GEFA, UNC Environmental Finance Center Tables of Rate Structures and Bills (May 2009)


Metro water district has made significant progress in adopting increasing block rate structures

Increasing block rate structures account for 93% of structures in Metro District


Increasing block rate structures serve 99% of population in Metro District


93

41

49

5 72

0

20

40

60

80

100 0

Metro water district

3

GA state

OtherDecreasing block

Uniform rate

Increasing block

Percentage of rate structures

99

77

18

0

0

20

40

60

80

100 10

Metro water district

14

GA state

OtherDecreasing block

Uniform rate

Increasing block

Percentage of population served

However, rate structures vary in their effectiveness in sending a conservation message to consumers








Increasing block structure: Price per unit of water increases as consumption increases. It is a tiered rate structure that may have 2 or more price tiers based on consumption levelsUniform rate structure: Price per unit of water remains constant regardless of consumptionDecreasing block structure: Price per unit of water decreases as consumption increasesSource: GEFA & UNC Environmental Finance Center table of Rate Structures and Bills (May 2009); Possible rounding errors


Many Metro district rate structures are effectively flat for average consumers

Scenario: Heavy water user (consuming 15K GPM) drops consumption 60% to average levels (6K GPM) 1

Scenario: Heavy water user (consuming 15K GPM) drops consumption 60% to average levels (6K GPM) 1

30

40

50

60

70

80

Metro district rate structures

% reduction in water bill

60

Actual utility rate structure examples: highlight variation in rate structure design

Actual utility rate structure examples: highlight variation in rate structure design

GPM tier Rate (per 1000 gal)

0 – 2000 $0 (Base Charge - $19.75)

2001 - 4000 $5.34

4001 - 6000 $6.67 125%

6001 - 10000 $10.68 200%

>10000 $17.09 320%

GPM tier Rate (per 1000 gal)

0 – 2000 $0 (Base Charge - $17.60)

2001 - 20000 $3.08

>20000 $4.18

Scenario tests steepness of the underlying rate structure– If bill decreases by more than 60%, the rate structure is increasing block

increasing blockbehavior

uniform/ decreasing block behavior


Note: 1. Average metro district residential consumption = 6000 GPM, Peak consumption (2.5x average) = 15000 GPM; GPM – Gallons Per MonthSource: GEFA & UNC Environmental Finance Center table of Rate Structures and Bills (May 2009)



Pricing option considered

Option Description Rationale Key ChallengesTiming (years)

Residential conservation pricing

Institute steeper residential increasing block rate structures by increasing marginal prices at high consumption levels, with the intent of reducing outdoor water use.

• Shifts financial burden from essential uses towards non-essential uses, promoting conservation while keeping minimum level of services affordable

• Economically efficient approach relative to non-pricing measures

• Readily enforceable—minimal enforcement costs

• Less effective for wealthy communities, as compared with non-pricing measures

• Less effective where non-essential demand and/or seasonal peaking are lower

• Utility revenue stream will be more unstable, varying with seasonal demand

• Impacts urban agriculture industry viability

1–3

Source: Technical Advisor Panel



Conservation pricing yield and cost estimates

OptionYield

(MGD) $/MGTiming (yrs)

4 - 7Institute steeper increasing block rate structures for residential (single family + multi-family) users to reduce outdoor water use

• Opportunity sized using current rate structures, focusing increases on subset of utilities with evidence of higher potential

• Assumes marginal price increases at high consumption levels (~14,000 Gallons per Month (GPM); where average is ~6,000 GPM)

1 - 3~100 -2001

Note: 1. Assumes a cost per utility of ~$250K, 55 utilities impacted and a project life of 50 years; comparable to estimate in current Metro plan, Table 4-2Source: MNGWPD Water Supply and Water Conservation Plan (May 2009), Table 4-2



Pricing focusing on addressing residential outdoor useRationale for scope of pricing option

Why isn't indoor use addressed?• Discretionary outdoor demand (non-essential use) is more responsive to pricing changes

relative to indoor demand (essential use)• To avoid double counting of water savings with other indoor efficiency programs being

evaluated by Task Force

Why aren't commercial users addressed?• Conservation pricing savings from commercial outdoor use already addressed by Metro

water plan i.e. Potential for incremental savings is minimal– Most commercial users have irrigation meters for outdoor use1

– Current Metro plan recommends a steep irrigation rate (at least 200% of base rate) for irrigation meters

– Savings from adoption of proposed irrigation pricing measures already accounted for in Metro area demand projections

• Commercial outdoor use being addressed by rain sensor water efficiency option being evaluated by Task Force

1. Based on working session between Task Force staff and Georgia Association of Water Professionals (GAWP)



Frequently asked questions on pricing option evaluation

Why aren't pricing savings higher?• Option addresses residential outdoor water use only, out of conservatism• Degree of price increase for any given rate structure is limited, to minimize consumer 'shock'• Analysis uses conservative estimate of addressable outdoor consumption (50% of total

outdoor consumption); detailed demand study per utility required for a precise estimate

What degree of price increase is assumed? • Varies by utility; derived from utility categorization by relative conservation pricing potential

– High potential: Wtd. avg. increase1 of ~69%, addressable consumption of ~4 MGD– Mid potential: Wtd. avg. increase1 of ~52%, addressable consumption of ~29 MGD– Low potential: Wtd. avg. increase1 of ~6%, addressable consumption of ~10 MGD

What yield can be expected through more aggressive price increase? • As an illustration, consider the hypothetical scenario that Metro district utilities raise their

marginal price at a consumption of 14K GPM, to match that of city of Atlanta• Under this scenario, implied wtd. avg. price increase1 is ~152%, yielding 13 – 24 MGD; this

range represents a theoretical upper bound

1. Denotes weighted average (by addressable outdoor consumption) increase to marginal price at a consumption of 14,000 GPM Note: GPM – Gallons Per Month


Six criteria used to rank utility conservation potential Utilities ranked from 1 (high) to 3 (low) on each criterion; weighted average for overall ranking

Criteria LogicWeight

(%)

Marginal price of water Utilities with lower marginal prices have greater conservation potential• MP at 14,000 GPM for combined (indoor/outdoor) rate structures• MP at 10,000 GPM for irrigation rate structures

Utilities that provide smaller financial incentives for reduction in use have greater conservation potential. Usage reduction scenarios:

• 60% reduction (15,000 to 6,000 GPM, combined rate structures)• 100% reduction (10,000 to 0 GPM, irrigation rate structures)

Indicators evaluated:• % change in total bill• Absolute ($) change in total bill

Demand seasonality Utilities with greater peaking ratio (ratio of summer use to winter use) have greater conservation potential

19

Preferred rank order:• Increasing block > seasonal rates > uniform rates > decreasing rates

Median household income Communities with higher income have lower conservation potential 2

Poverty level Communities with lower poverty have lower conservation potential 2

24

Financial incentive for demand reduction

2121

Rate structure type 11

1

2

3

4

5

6

Ranking used to categorize utilities into three groups based on relative capacity to improve pricing signals


Source: Technical Advisor Panel analysis and experience


Utilities categorized into three groups based on relative capacity to improve pricing signals

Comparison of key rate structure characteristics across groupsComparison of key rate structure characteristics across groups

10.5011.64

23.38

1.90

5.50

9.20

0

5

10

15

20

25

High Potential Mid Potential Low Potential

Average Marginal Price @ 14K1 GPM ($)

87.7199.08

210.44

16.6041.50

82.16

0

50

100

150

200

250


Average reduction in total bill2 ($)

Pop Served (Millions)

0.4 3.4 1.1 0.4 3.4 1.1

# Utilities21 21 21 21 21 21Min

Max

(Atlanta)(Atlanta)

Outdoor water reduction scenario: Household drops total consumption 33%, from 15K to 10K GPM


Significant variability in absolute marginal pricelevels for outdoor consumption

Significant variability in rate structure steepnessacross utilities

1. Pertains to combined water and sewer rate structures 2. Total bill savings for 33% reduction in consumption (15K to 10K GPM)


Approach to estimate residential outdoor water savings through pricing


Residential outdoor consumption~86 MGD1 RationaleRationale

• Utility categorization based on relative capacity to improve conservation pricing signal

High potential~8 MGD

Low potential~20 MGD

Mid potential~58 MGD

Consumption by group

Addressable consumption (MGD)

Weighted average

• 50% of total outdoor consumption assumed to be discretionary (above 14K GPM)

• Varies by utility - derived from utility categorization3. Rates steepened while limiting degree of change

increase in marginal price at 14K GPM

-0.2 to -0.42

~4

~69%

0.5 – 1.0

~10

~6%

0.1 – 0.2

~29

~52%

3 – 6

4 – 7 MGD

Price elasticity of outdoor demand

Incremental savings (MGD)

1. Estimated using per capita outdoor water consumption from Metro water plan (May 2009), Table 3-2 and data on population served by each utility from GEFA/UNC Rate Survey (May 2009)2. Water and Wastewater pricing, EPA 832-F-03-027; Olmstead et al, Comparing price and non-price approaches to urban water conservation; Metro plan assumptions; TAP estimates3. Assumes Marg. Price (MP) of utilities at 14K GPM would reach the avg. of their peers in the next category. MP for low pot. utilities assumed to reach 75th percentile within the categoryNote: Numbers may not add up due to rounding errors; GPM – Gallons Per Month; Source: Technical Advisor Panel Analysis


Degree of marginal price increase for each utility based on categorization

1. 75th percentile of all prices in the low potential category 2. Marginal price increase for high potential group varies from 0 – 370%, with a weighted average of 69% 3. Marginal price increasefor mid potential group varies from 15 – 145%, with a weighted average of 52% 4. Marginal price increase for low potential group varies from 0 – 50%, with a weighted average of 6%Source: Technical Advisor Panel

10.5011.64

23.38

5.73

8.98

13.45

1.90

5.50

9.20

0

5

10

15

20

25


Marginal Price @ 14K GPM ($)

Price benchmark for low potential

utilities

Price benchmark for high potential

utilities

Price benchmark for mid potential

utilities

13.751

~69 %2

~52 %3

~6 %4

(Atlanta)

Premise: Steepen rates while limiting degree of change

Min

Avg

Max



Pricing: general recommendationsIncrease marginal prices of residential outdoor water by raising rates of utilities with high conservation potential to be more in line with their higher priced peers in the District

– Performance Indicator: Marginal price at 14,000 gallons per month– Timeframe: 1 - 3 years

Improve customer awareness through effective billing practices– Communicate historical water use and marginal rates on monthly customer bill– Bill at least on a monthly basis to send more immediate price signals– Use utility billing data to target communication to irrigators

Adopt billing best-practices– Distinguish between different customer classes within your billing system– Require separate irrigation meters for all in-ground irrigation systems– Sub-meter multi –family residential and non-residential customers– Institute a program for customers who cannot afford bills (address affordability issues)

1

2

3


Source: Technical Advisor Panel


Leak abatement options estimated to yield ~8-10 MGD by 2012, en route to 27 MGD incremental savings by 2035

Option

Yield in 2012 (MGD)

Yield in 2035

(MGD)

Leak detection

Valve exercising

Pressure management

27

3Replacement of aged pipelineinfrastructure

Cost efficiency1

($/MG)

Total cost($M)

Capital cost ($M)

$1,200 $17

$1,184 -$2,368

Timing

8-10

$51,000 - $100,000

$262

$1,184 -$2,368

Savings to begin immediately;

~0.6 Savings to begin immediately;

Leakabatement2

Pipelinereplacement

1

2

I. Conserve

Pipeline replacement, while required in some areas, not an overall cost-effective measure to address water supply. Leak abatement (ie, rapid response) far more

cost efficient

Loss reduction

1. Based upon 25 years of lifetime yield for all measures2. Set 10% water loss goals for all utilities, versus current plan which is to set water loss goals by individual utilities Source: Technical Advisory Panel analysis;


Goal is to reduce current 16% water loss rate by 3% in 09 District Plan and 3% additional considered by Task Force

Metro Water District water demand forecast in 2035 and loss reduction options

Achieve 10% AWWA standard with 3% further loss reduction

Total of 63 MGD savings in 2035, reduces loss rate by 6% from 16% 10%

1,011

-3%

Demand w/ all conservation measures including loss reduction

(09 District Plan)

Demand w/ conservation and incremental loss reduction evaluated by Task Force

0

1,000

1,100

1,046

982

Projected demand w/ all conservation measures except loss reduction

(09 District Plan)

-3%

1,050

Water demand in 2035 (MGD)

35.5 MGD (3% reduction)

27 MGD (3% reduction)

Potential savings evaluated by TF additional to current 09 plan, reduces loss rate from

13% 10%

Projected savings in current 09 plan1, reduces loss rate

from 16% 13%

I. Conserve Loss reduction

1. Plan assumes reduction of all non-revenue water above 10% by half by countySource: Metro North Georgia District Water Plan (May 2009), Technical Advisory Panel analysis;



Loss reduction options considered (I)

Leakabatement

Pipelinereplacement

1

2

Description of solution Rationale Key challenges Timing

Expedited leak abatement program compared to current plan, targeting lower loss rate goal

1. Leak detection component to detect and repair active leaks in water pipelines

2. Valve exercising component to make sure valves are functioning properly, as they are used to isolate pipeline breaks and prevent water flow through those breaks

3. Pressure management component to use pressure sustaining valves to reduce water line breaks by reducing pressure of water during low usage periods (ie. at night when most water breaks occur)

Targeted and cost effective solutions to actively reduce water loss through leaks and breaks as they are occurring in the system

• Need regulatory framework to ensure all utilities conduct water audits to AWWA/IWAstandards and have robust leak abatement program

• Need accurate utility-level data for tailored loss reduction program and goals vs. arbitrary benchmarks

• Funding for programs

Savings to begin immediately

Ongoing capital program for water distribution pipeline repair and replacement to rehabilitate old pipes

Ongoing repair and replacement program can prevent future leaks, resulting in less investment on leak detection programs

• High cost of pipeline replacement program

Savings to begin immediately



Cost curve for loss reduction is non-linearLoss reduction avg cost of ~$5,000/MG at loss rate of 13%, but only ~$2,500/MG at rate of 15%

Cost of water loss reduction in $/MG across initial water loss rates

(11% 10.5% reduction of 0.5%)

(13% 11.5% reduction of 1.5%)

(20% 15% reduction of 5%)

(32% 21% reduction of 11%)

5 10 15 20 25 30 35

Initial water loss rate (%)

0

2,500

25,000

5,000

7,500

Average cost of 50% reduction from initial

loss rate to 10% target ($/MG)


Source: Metro North Georgia District Water Plan (May 2009) data provided by ARC,


Detailed cost estimates for leak abatement programs:leak detection, valve exercising and pressure mgmt


Leak detectionLeak detection Valve exercisingValve exercising Pressure managementPressure management

Water savings in 2035: 20 MGD

Cost efficiency: ~ $1,400/MG


Cost efficiency: ~ $2,100/MG

Overall water savings in 2035: 27 MGD

Overall cost efficiency: ~ $1,200/MG

Population 6,000,000 personsPopulation per metered unit 3 persons# of meters 2,000,000 metersMiles of water main 36,000 miles

# of crew persons per mile 0.003 PersonsEstimate of persons to perform leak detection

107 Persons

Estimate cost per person $35 $/hourHours per year 2,000 hours/yearEstimated cost per year $7,466,667 per year

PV of total cost: $130,018,169

Population 6,000,000 personsPopulation per metered unit 3 persons# of meters 2,000,000 metersMiles of water main 36,000 miles

# of crew persons per mile 0.002 PersonsEstimate of persons to perform valve exercising

80 Persons

Estimate cost per person $35 $/hourHours per year 2,000 hours/yearEstimated cost per year $5,600,000 per year

PV of total cost $97,513,627

Population 6,000,000 persons# households 2,000,000 householdHHs/pressure sustaining valve 5,000 HH/PSV# of PSVs 400 valves

Unit cost of PSV $50,000 per valveTotal cost of PSV $20,000,000

PV of installing PSVs over 10-year period

$17,060,406

Service cost for PSVs $1,000,000 per yearPV of service/maintenance cost $17,413,148

PV of total cost $34,473,553


Cost efficiency: ~ $374/MG

Note: Individual program savings not additiveSource: Technical Advisory Panel analysis;



Detailed cost estimates for pipeline replacement

Estimate of water savings Value UnitsCurrent Daily Use 680 MGD% Water Savings 0.5% %Water Savings 3.4 MGDAverage Savings at 25 years 5 MGDAverage Savings over 25 years (0 at begin, 5 at 2035) 2.5 MGD

Estimate of costEstimate of Large Transmission MainsMiles of Transmission Mains/mg 3 Miles/MGDAnnual Water Use 680 MGDTotal Miles of Transmission Mains 2,267 Miles

Estimated Value of Transmission Mains/Mile $1,500,000 $/MileEstimated Value of Transmission Mains $3,400,000,000 $Rehabilitation Costs per year as % 2% %Rehabilitation Costs per year $68,000,000 $PV of Annual Rehabilitation Costs $1,184,094,043 $

Cost/water savings RatioAveraged over 25 years $51,341 $/MG

Use upper bound of $3,000,000/mile



Overview of key options: Capture

Capture• Reservoirs and quarries• Groundwater and ASR• Desalination• Water quality / treatment


200 1,8001,6000

1,400 MGD saved/created

800600 1,000400 2,000South GA

GW system

1,600

Hard Labor Creek reservoir

Glades reservoir

Richland creek

reservoir

410 $/MG wtd avg2

Capture (2020)

500

15,000

Unit cost of savings ($/MG)

1,000

2,000

Capture (2015)6,000

1,200

6,000

Savannah desalination

plant

Newton Bear Creek reservoir

Many capture options are cost effective, potential long-term solutions

Reservoirexpansions,groundwater

Note: 1. Shortfall = Projected 2020 demand with conservation in Metro plan – Estimated 2020 supply (Lanier and Chatt. withdrawals per ruling, all other sources at current levels). Assumes demand continues to grow until year of shortfall. Other approaches could assume demand decreases as result of ruling, thus reducing implied gap. This analysis uses existing plan demand as baseline. Shortfall only accounts for counties with deficit 2. Weighted average $/MG calculated based on options that can address 2020 gap at lowest costCertain option yields may not be additive due to interaction effects; cost of transfer options do not account for return to originating basin Source: Technical Advisor Panel preliminary estimates

Estimated 2020 shortfall1 ~350 MGDCapital required to address ~ $2.3BWtd average cost efficiency ($/MG) ~ 410

II. Capture


Total of 15 reservoir options analyzed for costs, yields, feasibility

Glades

Big Haynes Creek

Detailed analysis conducted for:

• 4 reservoir expansions• 8 new reservoir builds• 1 dredging option• 2 types of quarry conversion

options (could apply to ~10 sites)

Counties bordering metro areaMNGWPD1 counties

Potential reservoir expansionPotential reservoir new build

NW of ForsythEtowah River

Tussahaw Creek

Dog River

Hard Labor Creek

E of GwinnettRichland Creek (x2)

Newton CountyBear CreekSouth Fulton

Bear Creek

Potential dredging option

12

3

4

5

6

7

9

11 8

12

13 Morgan Falls Dam

10

ReservoirsII. Capture

1. Metropolitan North Georgia Water Planning District


Potential yields, unit costs very sensitive to min flow policyYields up to 10x higher and unit costs up to 50% lower possible with lower instream requirement

Big Haynes Creek

Dog River

Tussahaw Creek

Etowah #1

Newton County Bear Creek

Hard Labor Creek1

South Fulton Bear Creek

Hall County Glades

Richland Creek (I)

Richland Creek (II)

New reservoir NW of Forsyth

New reservoir E of Gwinnett

Small quarry

Large quarry

Potential reservoir optionPotential reservoir option Estimated yield (MGD)Estimated yield (MGD)Unit cost of yield

($/MG)Unit cost of yield

($/MG)

50

85

85

10

40

20

40

50

35

15

50

90

80

35

100

135

20

205

45

> 10x

~20%

Yield estimatedbased on storage volume

Site-specificstudyA7Q1030% AAF or

M7Q10

305

510

620

700

730

780

615

500

580

725

550

350

260

325

305

1,2751,175

1,000

600 - 1,200

-50%

-10%

Yield estimation method

A7Q10 policyvs. 30% AAF

• ~$315/MG lower cost

-OR-

• ~$32M/yr

for equal yield

ReservoirsII. Capture

1. Updated cost estimates based on input from Hard Labor Creek engineering team Source: Technical Advisory Panel

II. Capture Reservoirs


Cost, yield estimates for reservoir options (I)

OptionMin flow policy

assumption Yield (MGD) Cost ($/MG) Timing (years) Big Haynes Creek A7Q10

30% AAF

Dog River A7Q10 205 325 8-12

South Fulton Bear Creek A7Q10 135 350 8-12

Hall County Glades A7Q10 100 550 8-12

A7Q10

Site-specific study

M7Q10

Site specific study

30% AAF

30% AAF

A7Q10

A7Q10

8-1230545

Dog River 50 305 8-12

Tussahaw Creek 20 260 8-12

Etowah River Dam #1 40 615 8-12

Newton County Bear Creek 20 780 8-12

South Fulton Bear Creek 10 700 8-12

Richland Creek (I) 35 725 10-12

Hall County Glades 85 620 8-12

Hard Labor Creek1 40 730 8-12

Richland Creek (II) 80 580 10-12

Expand

Build

1. Updated cost estimates based on input from Hard Labor Creek engineering teamNote: Estimates based on 50 year project life



Cost, yield estimates for reservoir options (II)

OptionMin flow policy

assumption Yield (MGD) Cost ($/MG) Timing (years) New reservoir NW of Forsyth 30% AAF

New reservoir NW of Forsyth A7Q10 90 500 8-12

New reservoir E of Gwinnett A7Q10 50 1,175 8-12

30% AAF

Ample stream flow, yield limited by storage volume

Ample stream flow, yield limited by storage volume

8-1251085

New reservoir E of Gwinnett 50 1,275 8-12

'Small' quarries(combined total of 3 quarries)

15 1,000 8-12

'Large' quarry(1 large active quarry)

35 600-1,2001 8-12

Morgan Falls Dam (Bull Sluice Lake)

Genericsite

reservoirs

Quarries

DredgeEstimates are pending further analysis; potential yields could be highly sensitive to

Buford Dam operations assumptions, which the Task Force lacks at this time

1. Depends significantly on acquisition costNote: Estimates based on 50 year project life


Four primary filters used to identify reservoir sites for detailed cost/ benefit analysis

Potential reservoir options

• Proximity to shortfall area• Within 15 county Metro North GA Water Planning District, or• Within a county bordering the district

• Yield• Estimated to provide at least 20 MGD incremental yield• Cost effectiveness proxy + analytical resource prioritization

• Timing (speed to impact)• Existing reservoir that could be expanded (generally quicker)• Potential new reservoirs in permitting / consideration phase

• Environmental impact• Expansions generally lower impact than new builds

1

2

3

4

Resulting consideration set



Specific "instream flow" policy dictates amount of water available to withdraw from streams


Concept Water withdrawers must leave some amount of water in streams to avoid harming aquatic life

Issue How much water must be left in stream, and therefore how much is available for water users to withdraw?

Options Varying opinions, but three statistically calculated values normally referenced...

Annual 7Q10Annual 7Q10 Monthly 7Q10Monthly 7Q1030% AAF30% AAF

Instream water requirement

• Lowest average flow expected to occur for 7 consecutive days once every 10 years

• 30% of stream's annual average flow

• Similar in magnitude to Monthly 7Q10

• Same as Annual 7Q10, but calculated for each month

• More water left instream during wet season

Actual values highly site-specific, but generally...Water available for withdrawal Most Less Least

Alternatively, a site-specific study can be completed to determine minimum flow requirements



Reservoirs: assumptions

For existing reservoirs that do not currently incorporate pumped storage, evaluate increased yield achieved by adding capability where feasible

For reservoirs in permitting/planning, evaluate incremental yield achieved by building higher dam or using lower instream flow requirement

All yields estimated via sophisticated modeling software, based on "usable storage" levels, and minimum instream flow as indicated per option

Wherever applicable, cost of conveyance from reservoir to a new distribution network was estimated using standardized, across-team assumptions

Costs include 30% contingency factor for dam structures

No cost included for potential water quality compatibility concerns with distribution system interconnections

Yield

Costs



Frequently asked questions on reservoir estimates

How were costs developed?• Estimated cost of infrastructure upgrades (expansions) or new infrastructure (new builds) based on

previous and current projects – effectively a rough "bid" as if a new project• Used standardized across-team assumptions where applicable (including contingencies)

What do these costs include?• Initial capital expense + estimated operating expense over a 50 year period• Includes legal, permitting, design, engineering, land acquisition, infrastructure, environmental mitigation

(15%), treatment, new pumps/pipes to distribution if required• Actual dam infrastructure costs include 30% contingency factor

Are these values aggressive (low cost)?• Costs represent reasonable approximation of mid-range, conservative estimates

How do these estimates compare?• GEFA study notes "rough estimate" of $4-10M per MGD for reservoir expansions or builds• Task Force estimates range ~$4-6M per MGD for reservoir expansions• Task Force estimates range ~$8-19M per MGD for new reservoir builds (~$5-11M excluding pump +

pipe infrastructure to distribution systems)


Reservoir cost estimates fall within industry guidelinesExpansions at lower end of range, with new builds middle to high end

0

5

10

15

New builds

$10M/MGD2

$4M/MGD2 All other costs

Pump/pipe todistribution

Expansions

$/MGD1Task Force reservoir average cost estimates

compared to GEFA study guidelines


1. Total cost (capital expense + operating expenses) per MGD of new supply yield 2. Endpoints of $4M-$10M per MGD range reported in GEFA study as guidelines for reservoir costs based on contemporary experience in GeorgiaSource: GEFA study "Georgia Inventory and Survey of Feasible Sites for Water Supply Reservoirs", October 2008


Reservoir options considered (I)

Option Description Rationale Key challengesTiming (years)

Big Haynes Creek Reservoir

Add pumped storage from Yellow River (when surplus available in this larger nearby river, pump into reservoir for storage rather than allowing it to flow downstream unused); Rockdale county water treatment plant (WTP) treat and sell extra yield to Gwinnett

Not an interbasin transfer (IBT), not a long distance movement of water, not an interstate basin, significant new yield, increased water reuse, existing purchase connection between counties

Public acceptance of indirect wastewater reuse

8-12

Dog River Reservoir

Raise dam height, add pumped storage from Chattahoochee River; Douglas county WTP treat and sell extra yield to Cobb County

Not an IBT, not a long distance movement of water, reasonable new yield, increased water reuse, existing purchase connection between counties

Corps of Engineers (COE) permit for reservoir expansion, Public acceptance of indirect reuse of wastewater, interstate stream

8-12

TussahawCreek Reservoir

Add pumped storage from Jackson Lake (at Newton/ Butts/ Jasper lines); Henry Co treat and sell extra yield to DeKalb County

Not an IBT, not an interstate stream, existing purchase connection between counties

Limited new yield, long distance movement of water, new use of Lake Jackson (Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) and Georgia Power approval)

8-12

Etowah River Dam 1 NRCSReservoir

Raise dam height, convert from flood control to water supply, pump yield to Forsyth County WTP

Existing reservoir, not an IBT COE permit for new water supply reservoir, interstate stream, limited yield

8-12

Expa

nd

1

2

3

4


Source: Technical Advisory Panel



Reservoir options considered (II)


Newton County Bear Creek Reservoir

Build reservoir, add pumped storage from Jackson Lake, Newton Co sell 20 MGD from Cornish Creek to Gwinnett

Not an IBT, not an interstate stream

Limited new yield, long distance, new use of Lake Jackson (FERC and Georgia Power approval, COE permit for new reservoir

8-12

Hard Labor Creek Reservoir

Build reservoir, pumped storage from Apalachee, new WTP, pipeline to Gwinnett, sell excess water to Gwinnett

Reservoir permitted, dam designed, not an IBT, significant new yield, strong local support

Long distance movement of water 8-12

South Fulton Bear Creek Reservoir

Build reservoir, pumped storage from Chattahoochee, new WTP, pipeline to Atlanta, sell excess water to South Fulton and City of Atlanta

Not an IBT, significant new yield, local government support, increase water reuse, existing purchase connection between counties

Public acceptance of indirect wastewater reuse, interstate stream, COE permit for new reservoir, City of Atlanta opposition

8-12

Hall County Glades Reservoir

Build reservoir, pumped storage from Chattahoochee, new WTP, half yield to Gainesville, half to Gwinnett

No new IBT, very significant yield, local support, land owned by local government, located to serve several governments

COE permit for reservoir, interstate basin, long distance movement of water

8-12

Paulding County Richland Creek Reservoir (#1)

Build reservoir, pumped storage from Etowah, pipe to Paulding Co WTP

Significant new yield, reservoir land purchased, strong local government support

COE permit for reservoir, potential IBT, interstate basin

10-12

Paulding County Richland Creek Reservoir (#2)

Build larger reservoir, pumped storage from Etowah, new WTP, sell excess yield to Cobb and/or Bartow counties

Very significant new yield COE permit for new reservoir, potential IBT, interstate basin

10-12

Bui

ld

5

6

8

9

7

10




Reservoir options considered (III)


New reservoir NW of Forsyth

Build reservoir to supply Forsyth County, pumping raw water to the Forsyth WTP

Very significant new yield, no IBT

COE permit for new reservoir, interstate stream, EPD approval of instream flow

8-12

New reservoir E of Gwinnett

Build reservoir with pumped storage east of Gwinnett County, pumping raw water to Gwinnett WTP

Significant new yield Potential IBT, potential interstate stream, long distance movement of water, COE permit for new reservoir, EPD approval of instream flow

8-12

Dredge Bull Sluice Lake (behind Morgan Falls dam)

Dredge Bull Sluice Lake (behind Morgan Falls Dam) to create additional storage and provide incremental yield to existing water treatment plants

Increase capacity of Bull Sluice Lake; some additional yield for Cobb County, City of Atlanta

Limited new yield, environmental permitting; access to land (purchase or lease) for dewatering/loading; local resident impacts (heavy truck traffic, noise); damage to public roads, wildlife impacts; 2.75 years of field operations; significant permitting time

8-12

Convert 'small' quarry (~3 BG) to water storage

Add pumped storage from any sizeable stream, pump raw water to an existing WTP

No reservoir needed, may help augment localized storage needs

Limited new yield, few inactive quarries available in proximity to area of shortfall

8-12

Convert 'large' quarry (~15 BG) to water storage

Add pumped storage from any sizeable stream within 10 miles, pump raw water 10 miles to an existing WTP

No reservoir needed, significant new yield

Long distance movement of water, only one 'large' quarry in area and it is still active, significant acquisition cost likely

8-12

Bui

ldQ

uarr

ies

Dre

dge

11

12

14

13

15




Reservoir options submitted by Task Force

Source OptionYield

(MGD)

Expand Raccoon Creek #8 11

10

2

Expand Etowah River #1 24 Included in detailed analysis set

Habersham EMC

Build Habersham Reservoir TBD(max <99)

Impounding a major stream not likely to be permittedCosts higher (longer transport), yields lower (in-stream vs. off-stream pump storage from same source) than Hall County Glades Reservoir

Expand Ellijay River #1

Expand Talking Rock Creek #13

Comparison to optionsconsidered by TAP team

Similar location/costs, lower yield than Richland Creek optionsCould it be implemented more quickly?

No direct impact to affected counties w/o adding high transport costs

No direct impact to affected counties w/o adding high transport costs

GSWCC

Source: "Inventory and Assessment of USDA/Soil and Water Conservation District Watershed Dams" (Mar 16, 2009); email communications from GSWCC and Habersham EMC



Detailed cost estimates for options (I) Team: Reservoirs

Option

Pump & pipe ($M)

Water treat-ment($M)

Other capital costs1

($M)Total ($M)

Annual O&M($M)

Annual res.

maint($M)

117 0.5

0.5

Dog River (A7Q10) 391 438 122 951 8.9 0.4 0.5 9.8 1,202

South Fulton Bear Creek (A7Q10) 332 300 87 719 5.6 0.2 0.5 6.3 882

Hall County Glades (A7Q10) 364 226 213 803 7.2 0.3 0.5 8.0 1,008

0.5

0.5

0.5

0.5

0.5

Hall County Glades (30% AAF) 355 201 226 782 6.8 0.3 0.5 7.6 978

Richland Creek (I) 114 89 138 341 4.0 0.2 0.5 4.7 462

0.5

119

54

102

54

219

27

Total ($M)

Total cost2

($M)

185

108

112

10

158

8

151

68

260

1.5

1.4

1.2

Etowah River Dam #1 91 351 3.5 0.3 4.3 460

Newton County Bear Creek 163 225 1.7 0.1 2.3 285

Hard Labor Creek3 58 428 4.1 0.2 4.8 750

South Fulton Bear Creek (30% AAF) 0 95 0.1 0.1 0.6 110

Richland Creek (II) 171 616 7.8 0.3

225

8.6

0.1

837

0.2

262

267

0.1

231

64 95

0

0

0

Annual Pumping (Power)

($M)

Big Haynes Creek 0.9

0.7

0.6

Dog River (30% AAF)

Tussahaw Creek

Capital CostCapital Cost Annual Operating CostAnnual Operating Cost

Expa

ndB

uild

1. Includes pre-construction, reservoir system infrastructure, and environmental mitigation costs 2. Indicates total cost in 2010$ over the life of the project, discounted at 3% 3. Updated cost estimates based on input from Hard Labor Creek engineering teamNote: All estimates have been rounded to the nearest tenth, numbers may not add up due to rounding errors



Detailed cost estimates for options (II) Team: Reservoirs

Option

Pump & pipe ($M)

Water treat-ment($M)


($M)Total ($M)

Annual O&M($M)

Annual res.

maint($M)

202 0.5

Reservoir NW of Forsyth (A7Q10) 161 206 283 650 5.3 0.3 0.5 6.1 806

Reservoir E of Gwinnett (A7Q10) 497 122 252 871 7.1 0.3 0.5 7.9 1,073

0.5

0.5

'Large' quarry 78 95 77 - 5773 250 – 750 3.6 0.2 0.5 4.3 360 – 860

122

23

Total ($M)

Total cost2

($M)294

343

34

6.1

7.9

1.7

Morgan Falls dam

(Bull Sluice Lake)

657 0.3

0.3

815

1,170

0.1

962

14095

161

497

37


($M)

Reservoir NW of Forsyth (30% AAF) 5.3

7.1

1.1

Reservoir E of Gwinnett (30% AAF)

'Small' quarry


Gen

eric

Qua

rry

Dre

dge Estimates are pending further analysis; potential yields could be highly sensitive to

Buford Dam operations assumptions, which the Task Force lacks at this time'

1. Includes pre-construction, reservoir system infrastructure, and environmental mitigation costs 2. Indicates total cost in 2010$ over the life of the project, discounted at 3% 3. Highly uncertain acquisition costs for a large, active quarryNote: All estimates have been rounded to the nearest tenth, numbers may not add up due to rounding errors


Big Haynes Creek ReservoirReservoirs: expansion



Some minor sensitivities

Water withdrawalDrinking water NoMinimal concern, mainly over public acceptance

of indirect wastewater reuse

Instream flow assumption Yield (MGD) Cost ($/MG) Pre-const Const

A7Q10 45 2-4 6-8305

Overall1

8-12

Timing (years)Timing (years)

Instreamflow

Pump & pipe ($M)

Water treatment

($M)


($M)Total ($M)

Annual O&M($M)

Annual res. maint

($M)

A7Q10 0.5

Total ($M)

Total cost3

($M)117 108 0.1 1.5 2622250


($M)0.9


Yield

Costs



1. Includes 1 year for reservoir to fill with water 2. Includes pre-construction, reservoir system infrastructure, and environmental mitigation costs 3. Indicates total cost in 2010$ over the life of the project, discounted at 3% 4. "Annual reservoir maintenance"All estimates have been rounded to the nearest tenth, numbers may not add up due to rounding errors



Dog River Reservoir Reservoirs: expansion


30% AAFA7Q10

50205

2-42-4

6-86-8

305325

Overall1

8-128-12


Yield

Instreamflow

Pump & pipe ($M)

Water treatment

($M)


($M)Total ($M)

Annual O&M($M)

Annual res.

maint4

($M)

30% AAFA7Q10

0.50.5

Total ($M)

Total cost3

($M)119438

112122

0.20.4

1.49.8

2671,202

231951

0391


($M)0.78.9


Costs



Some significant sensitivities

Water withdrawalDrinking waterSafe dams404

NoInterstate stream, some concern over public acceptance of indirect wastewater reuse





Tussahaw Creek Reservoir Reservoirs: expansion


A7Q10 20 2-4 6-8260

Overall1

8-12


Yield

Instreamflow

Pump & pipe ($M)

Water treatment

($M)


($M)Total ($M)

Annual O&M($M)

Annual res.

maint4

($M)

A7Q10 0.5

Total ($M)

Total cost3

($M)54 10 0.1 1.2 95640


($M)0.6


Costs



Contentious Water withdrawalDrinking water NoLong movement of water, new use of Jackson

Lake, requires FERC and GA Power approvalStakeholder sensitivity




Etowah River Dam #1 Reservoir Reservoirs: expansion


Site-specific study 40 2-4 6-8615

Overall1

8-12


Yield

Instreamflow

Pump & pipe ($M)

Water treatment

($M)


($M)Total ($M)

Annual O&M($M)

Annual res.

maint4

($M)

Site-specific study

0.5

Total ($M)

Total cost3

($M)102 158 0.3 4.3 46035191


($M)3.5


Costs





NoCOE permit for new reservoir, EPD approval of instream flow, interstate stream, limited yield





Newton County Bear Creek Reservoir Reservoirs: new build


M7Q10 20 2-4 6-8780

Overall1

8-12


Yield

Instreamflow

Pump & pipe ($M)

Water treatment

($M)


($M)Total ($M)

Annual O&M($M)

Annual res.

maint4

($M)

M7Q10 0.5

Total ($M)

Total cost3

($M)54 8 0.1 2.3 285225163


($M)1.7


Costs





NoLong distance movement of water, new use of Lake Jackson (FERC and Georgia Power Co. approval , COE permit for new reservoir





Hard Labor Creek Reservoir Reservoirs: new build


Site-specific study 40 2-4 6-8730

Overall1

8-12


Yield

Instreamflow

Pump & pipe ($M)

Water treatment

($M)


($M)Total ($M)

Annual O&M($M)

Annual res.

maint4

($M)

Site-specific study

0.5

Total ($M)

Total cost3

($M)219 151 0.2 4.8 75042858


($M)4.1


Costs5



Some minor sensitivities Drinking water NoLong distance movement of waterStakeholder

sensitivity

1. Includes 1 year for reservoir to fill with water 2. Includes pre-construction, reservoir system infrastructure, and environmental mitigation costs 3. Indicates total cost in 2010$ over the life of the project, discounted at 3% 4. "Annual reservoir maintenance" 5. Updated cost estimates based on input from Hard Labor Creek engineering teamAll estimates have been rounded to the nearest tenth, numbers may not add up due to rounding errors



South Fulton Bear Creek Reservoir Reservoirs: new build


30% AAFA7Q10

10135

2-42-4

6-86-8

700350

Overall1

8-128-12


Yield

Instreamflow

Pump & pipe ($M)

Water treatment

($M)


($M)Total ($M)

Annual O&M($M)

Annual res.

maint4

($M)

30% AAFA7Q10

0.50.5

Total ($M)

Total cost3

($M)27300

6887

0.10.2

0.66.3

110882

95719

0332


($M)0.15.6


Costs



Contentious


Yes (SDSrestriction)5

Public acceptance of indirect wastewater reuse, interstate stream, COE permit for new reservoir, EPD approval of instream flow, City of Atlanta opposition


1. Includes 1 year for reservoir to fill with water 2. Includes pre-construction, reservoir system infrastructure, and environmental mitigation costs 3. Indicates total cost in 2010$ over the life of the project, discounted at 3% 4. "Annual reservoir maintenance" 5. Cannot proceed until a new Service Delivery Strategy (SDS) is developed for Fulton County, or HB 406 is passed exempting multigovernmental reservoirs from the SDS restrictions.All estimates have been rounded to the nearest tenth, numbers may not add up due to rounding errors



Hall County Glades Reservoir Reservoirs: new build


30% AAFA7Q10

85100

2-42-4

6-86-8

620550

Overall1

8-128-12


Yield

Instreamflow

Pump & pipe ($M)

Water treatment

($M)


($M)Total ($M)

Annual O&M($M)

Annual res.

maint4

($M)

30% AAFA7Q10

0.50.5

Total ($M)

Total cost3

($M)201226

226213

0.30.3

7.68.0

9781,008

782803

355364


($M)6.87.2


Costs



Contentious


Yes (IBT)COE permit for reservoir, interstate basin, EPD approval of instream flow, long distance movement of water





Richland Creek Reservoir (I)Reservoirs: new build


A7Q10 35 2-4 6-8725

Overall1

8-12


Yield

Instreamflow

Pump & pipe ($M)

Water treatment

($M)


($M)Total ($M)

Annual O&M($M)

Annual res.

maint4

($M)

A7Q10 0.5

Total ($M)

Total cost3

($M)89 138 0.2 4.7 462341114


($M)4.0


Costs

Stakeholder sensitivity Reasons Permits required Requires

legislation

Contentious


Yes (IBT)COE permit for reservoir, potential IBT, interstate basin, EPD approval of instream flow





Richland Creek Reservoir (II)Reservoirs: new build


A7Q10 80 2-4 6-8580

Overall1

8-12


Yield

Instreamflow

Pump & pipe ($M)

Water treatment

($M)


($M)Total ($M)

Annual O&M($M)

Annual res.

maint4

($M)

A7Q10 0.5

Total ($M)

Total cost3

($M)185 260 0.3 8.6 837616171


($M)7.8


Costs



Contentious


Yes (IBT)COE permit for reservoir, potential IBT, interstate basin, EPD approval of instream flow





New Reservoir NW of Forsyth Reservoirs: new build


30% AAFA7Q10

8590

2-42-4

6-86-8

510500

Overall1

8-128-12


Yield

Instreamflow

Pump & pipe ($M)

Water treatment

($M)


($M)Total ($M)

Annual O&M($M)

Annual res.

maint4

($M)

30% AAFA7Q10

0.5

Total ($M)

Total cost3

($M)202 294 0.3 6.1 815657161


($M)5.3


Costs

Stakeholder sensitivity Reasons Permits required Requires

legislation

Contentious


NoCOE permit for new reservoir, interstate stream, EPD approval of instream flow





New Reservoir E of Gwinnett Reservoirs: new build


30% AAFA7Q10

5050

2-42-4

6-86-8

1,2751,175

Overall1

8-128-12


Yield

Instreamflow

Pump & pipe ($M)

Water treatment

($M)


($M)Total ($M)

Annual O&M($M)

Annual res.

maint4

($M)

30% AAFA7Q10

0.5

Total ($M)

Total cost3

($M)122 343 0.3 7.9 1,170962497


($M)7.1


Costs



Contentious


Yes (IBT)Potential IBT, potential interstate stream, long distance movement of water, COE permit for new reservoir, EPD approval of instream flow





Quarry options Reservoirs: convert quarries

Size of quarry Yield (MGD) Cost ($/MG) Pre-const ConstSmall (~3 BG)

Large (~15 BG)5 (per quarry)

352-42-4

6-86-8

1,000600 - 1,200

Overall1

8-128-12


Yield

Size of quarry

Pump & pipe ($M)

Water treatment

($M)


($M)Total ($M)

Annual O&M($M)

Annual res.

maint4

($M)

SmallLarge

0.50.5

Total ($M)

Total cost3

($M)2395

3477 – 577

0.10.2

1.74.3

140360 - 860

95250 – 750

3778


($M)1.13.6


Costs




Water withdrawalDrinking water No

Potential long distance movement of water, highly uncertain acquisition costs of active quarries




Three small, inactive quarries within Metro area could provide 5-25 MGD yield at cost of $1,000-1,500/ MG

Ben HillClayton County

Forest ParkRed Oak

NorcrossLoganville

Adairsville

Fairmount

Rome (x2)

Critical shortfall countyMNGWPD2 counties

Inactive ("abandoned") quarriesActive quarries

Filtering for inactive status + proximity to critical shortfall area suggests 3 potential options

Filtering for inactive status + proximity to critical shortfall area suggests 3 potential options

3

2 – 8 MGD

Inactive quarry in potentially feasible proximity of critical shortfall area

Inactive

Borders critical shortfall county

Quarries

Estimated yield per quarry

~5 – 25 MGD Total small quarry potential

Large, active quarry considered as an option


1. In development for water storage use by City of Atlanta 2. Metropolitan North Georgia Water Planning DistrictSource: EPD - Metropolitan Atlanta abandoned quarries (greater than 50 acres); City of Atlanta DWM - Atlanta Area Quarry Inventory


Overview of key options: Capture



Total of 9 specific groundwater options evaluatedTopic: Aquifer Storage and Recovery (ASR) / Groundwater (GW)

2

3

4

5

6

78

9

Lawrenceville GW1Lawrenceville ASR

Gainesville GW

Non-potable GW useASR NW of Metro

Bartow GW

South Fulton GW

Spalding Co GW

South GA GW supply

GW/ASR

Illustrative- exact locations TBD

II. Capture

II. Capture GW/ASR


ASR/Groundwater option summary

Option Yield (MGD)Cost

($/MG) Timing (years)Lawrenceville groundwater 6

Gainesville groundwater 5 375 3

Spalding county groundwater 6 325 3

Bartow groundwater 7 345 4

Palmetto groundwater 2 375 4

Groundwater for non-potable use in Metro area 15 155 3

ASR northwest of Metro area 20 1,840 4-6

South GA groundwater 200 1,600 8-10

ASR to augment Lawrenceville groundwater 4 900 3-5

3300

Ground-water

ASR

Note: Estimates based on 50 year project life

II. Capture GW/ASR


ASR/Groundwater: context

Ground Water SystemGround Water System Aquifer Storage and RecoveryAquifer Storage and Recovery

What is an aquifer?• A geological formation containing water which

supplies wells and springs.

What is groundwater?• Water contained within an aquifer

How is groundwater used?• Over 50% of the US population uses ground

water as their primary water source• Many cities use ground water as primary

supply or to augment other supply sources

Is groundwater used in Georgia?• Groundwater serves ~20% of all GA water use• Largest uses are irrigation, public supply

(drinking, household use, etc), and industrial

Is groundwater used in Metro North Georgia?• Groundwater <1% of Metro public supply use• Regional geology not conducive to large yield,

but does provide some yield in localized areasSource: USGS, Etowah Water Bank fact sheet, Metro Water Plan (2009)

What is ASR?• A system designed to inject surplus water into

an aquifer for extraction at a later time• Can be thought of as an underground reservoir

without evaporative losses and with minimal environmental impacts

How is ASR used?• When water is available (periods of high flow

or off-peak demand), excess water is injected into the aquifer

• During peak demand periods, water is recovered to augment supply

• Note: water would be treated both before injection and after recovery in Georgia

• There are currently ~95 ASR well fields in operation in 20 US states

• Etowah Water Bank, currently in development in Rome, GA, is an example of ASR


Major aquifers in GeorgiaGeologic formations in south GA generally contain more abundant groundwater

Appalachian Plateau

Valley and ridge

Blue Ridge

Piedmont

Coastal plain

Dougherty plain

Savannah

AtlantaMacon

Augusta

Columbus

Fall

line

Paleozoic rock

Paleozoic rock aquifersaquifers Crystalline rock

Crystalline rock

aquifersaquifers

Cretaceous aquifer

system

ClaytonClaiborne

Floridan aquifer system

Upper & lower Brunswick

15 county MNGWPD1

Coastal plain aquifers• Floridan• Floridan, Claiborne, Clayton, Cretaceous• Floridan, Cretaceous• Claiborne, Clayton, Cretaceous• Cretaceous

Piedmont and Blue Ridge aquifers• Crystalline rock

Valley and Ridge and Appalachian Plateau• Paleozoic rock

Generally little groundwater present

More groundwater present

II. Capture GW/ASR

1. Metropolitan North Georgia Water Planning District


Description of options in considerationTopic: Aquifer Storage and Recovery (ASR) / Groundwater (I)

Option Description Rationale Key challengesLawrenceville EPD permitting; many wells in

industrial or highly developed areas; minor volatile organic compounds (VOC's) locally present in groundwaterEPD permitting; by nature, wells in marbles very turbid; may require additional treatment; potential for land subsidence if over pumped

EPD permitting; many existing wells and new well sites are in industrial areas, pumping during summer of 2000 showed low levels of VOC's

Bartow County New groundwater supply system in Bartow county, provide additional water to Bartow, Cobb, Paulding counties

Geology of the Valley and Ridge had provided extremely high yielding wells, ranging up to 3,000 gpm (4.3 MGD); new wells for Emerson are promising; within 15 county Metro region

EPD permitting; potential for land subsidence if not properly managed; could require extensive development to remove turbidity from the system

~4

South Fulton (Palmetto)

New groundwater supply system in South Fulton (Palmetto), reduce upper Chattahoochee withdrawals

Many high yielding wells (80-400 gpm) have been drilled for industrial uses; none of the wells have been used or tested for drinking water

EPD permitting; retrofitting wells to drinking water standards; existing wells are privately owned

~4

Suwanee to Gainesville corridor

Timing (years)

Spalding County, near Griffin

Hydrogeologic investigations completed, 6 existing wells ready for permitting; 6 new well sites available (70-350 gallons per minute (gpm))

New groundwater supply system in Suwanee to Gainesville Corridor (Hall County)

Area contains unique geologic environment that locally contains marbles; generally highly solutioned and provide very high yields (200-400 gpm); some existing wells produce up to 1 MGD; option plans for 12 wells, 5 MGD total

~3

New groundwater supply system in Spalding county, reduce upper Chattahoochee withdrawals

Unique geologic environment near Griffin would allow for very productive well fields (100-600 gpm); existing water supply and finished water lines in area

New groundwater supply system in Lawrenceville (Gwinnett)

~3

~3

Gro

undw

ater

1

2

3

4

5

II. Capture GW/ASR



Description of options in considerationTopic: Aquifer Storage and Recovery (ASR) / Groundwater (II)

Option Description Rationale Key challengesLarge, south GA supply system

Public perception (Atlanta taking water), possible basin transfer issues.

Resistance to invest in individual well system. Irrigation use is seasonal, so demand in summer is reduced.

Public perception (Atlanta taking water), permitting; requires feasibility testing in NW Georgia; ultimately yield is based on excess water supply available to recharge ASR well field

ASR in Lawrenceville area

Install ASR system in Lawrenceville to provide additional yield directly to Gwinnett

Use ASR to supplement recharge in the Lawrenceville system; store off-peak treated water; provide water to Gwinnett County

Permitting due to well head protection issues (physical security of wells against tampering); public perception of contamination issues (VOC's)

3-5

Non-potable groundwater supply

Timing (years)

ASR northwest of Metro area

High yield aquifers in SW GA; well field development will financially benefit rural GA

Use localized groundwater systems for non-potable uses in Gwinnett, Hall, Forsyth such as irrigation, cooling facilities, industrial process water

Replace use of treated water with groundwater for non-potable applications; process has been operating for decades, with great success, by those unable to receive adequate service from government-mandated central water suppliers

~3

Install ASR system northwest of Metro area; provide additional yield directly to Metro area counties (Cobb, Bartow, Paulding), pump water to existing WTP's

Develop ASR well field in Floyd and/or Bartow Counties; store off-peak treated water; reduces evaporative loss from reservoirs; meet peak demand requirements

Develop large (~200 MGD) groundwater supply system in south GA, create new water authority to manage supply, Metro area buy water

4-6

8-10

Gro

undw

ater

ASR

6

7

8

9

II. Capture GW/ASR


II. Capture GW/ASR


Detailed cost estimates for options Team: Aquifer Storage and Recovery (ASR) / groundwater

Option

Pump & pipe ($M)

Water treatment

($M)

Other capital

costs ($M)Total ($M)

Annual O&M($M)

Other annual costs($M)

0.3 0.1

0.1

0.1

0.1

0.1

37

0

ASR northwest of Metro area

350 n/a1 100 450 2.9 5.5 0 8.5 670

0

0.3

0.3

0.5

0.3

10

n/a

Total ($M)

Total cost2

($M)

n/a1

0.3

0.4

0.5

1.0

0.4

102

8

15

1.1

0.9

1.1

Bartow groundwater 9.5 11.0 0.5 0.7 1.3 45

Palmetto groundwater 2.6 3.2 0.2 0.2 0.4 15

South GA groundwater 2,535 2,647 50 37 124 5,840

Groundwater for non-potable use in Metro area

n/a 8 1 0 1 35

ASR to augment Lawrenceville groundwater

3.9 19 0.7 1.1

4.5

1.8

0.6

65

0.5

35

35

0.6

10.2

7.2 35

3.9

9.5

6.3


($M)

Lawrenceville groundwater

0.5

0.4

0.5

Gainesville groundwater

Spalding county groundwater


Gro

und-

wat

erA

SR

1. Option would use available capacity at existing WTP's 2. Indicates total cost in 2010$ over the life of the project, discounted at 3% All estimates have been rounded to the nearest tenth, numbers may not add up due to rounding errors

II. Capture GW/ASR


Lawrenceville groundwater

Pump & pipe ($M)

Water treatment

($M)

Other capital


Annual WTP cost

($M)

Annual O&M($M)

0.3

Total ($M)

Total cost1

($M)0.10.3 1.14.5 350.63.9


($M)0.5


Yield (MGD) Cost ($/MG) Pre-const Const~6 2 1300

Overall 3


Yield

Costs





Many wells in industrial or highly developed areas, minor Volatile Organic Compounds locally present in ground water


1. Indicates total cost in 2010$ over the life of the project, discounted at 3%All estimates have been rounded to the nearest tenth, numbers may not add up due to rounding errors

II. Capture GW/ASR


Gainesville groundwater

Pump & pipe ($M)

Water treatment

($M)

Other capital


Annual WTP cost

($M)

Annual O&M($M)

0.3

Total ($M)

Total cost1

($M)0.10.4 0.910.2 350.59.5


($M)0.4



Overall 3


Yield

Costs




Water withdrawalDrinking water NoPotential development of land subsidence if over

pumpedStakeholder sensitivity


II. Capture GW/ASR


Spalding County groundwater

Pump & pipe ($M)

Water treatment

($M)

Other capital


Annual WTP cost

($M)

Annual O&M($M)

0.3

Total ($M)

Total cost1

($M)0.10.5 1.17.2 350.66.3


($M)0.5



Overall 3


Yield

Costs





Potential low level Volatile Organic Compounds present in ground water



II. Capture GW/ASR


Bartow groundwater

Pump & pipe ($M)

Water treatment

($M)

Other capital


Annual WTP cost

($M)

Annual O&M($M)

0.5

Total ($M)

Total cost1

($M)0.11.0 1.311.0 450.79.5


($M)0.5



Overall 4


Yield

Costs



Some significant sensitivities; some chance of delayed implementation

Water withdrawalDrinking water NoPotential for development of land subsidence if

not properly managed



II. Capture GW/ASR


Palmetto groundwater

Pump & pipe ($M)

Water treatment

($M)

Other capital


Annual WTP cost

($M)

Annual O&M($M)

0.3

Total ($M)

Total cost1

($M)0.10.4 0.43.2 150.22.6


($M)0.2



Overall 4


Yield

Costs




Water withdrawalDrinking water NoRequires retrofitting wells to drinking water

standards, existing wells privately owned



II. Capture GW/ASR


South GA groundwater

Pump & pipe ($M)

Water treatment

($M)

Other capital


Annual WTP cost

($M)

Annual O&M($M)

10

Total ($M)

Total cost1

($M)37102 1242,647 5,840372,535


($M)50


Yield (MGD) Cost ($/MG) Pre-const Const~200 2-3 3-101,600

Overall 5-13


Yield

Costs



ContentiousWater withdrawalDrinking water Yes (IBT)

Potential opposition from existing ground water users (agriculture, industry, municipalities), interbasin transfer, sustainable yields subject to results of ongoing EPD modeling efforts



II. Capture GW/ASR


Groundwater for non-potable use


Overall 3


Yield

Pump & pipe ($M)

Water treatment

($M)

Other capital


Annual WTP cost

($M)

Annual O&M($M)

0

Total ($M)

Total cost1

($M)n/a 8 0 1 358n/a


($M)1


Costs



No significant sensitivities noted Water withdrawal NoStakeholder

sensitivity


II. Capture GW/ASR


ASR NW of Metro area


Overall 4-6


Yield

Pump & pipe ($M)

Water treatment

($M)

Other capital


Annual WTP cost

($M)

Annual O&M($M)

0

Total ($M)

Total cost1

($M)n/a2 100 5.5 8.5 670450350


($M)2.9


Costs




Water withdrawalDrinking water NoConcerns over "contaminating" ground water

sources with surface water


1. Indicates total cost in 2010$ over the life of the project, discounted at 3% 2. Utilize existing WTP capacityAll estimates have been rounded to the nearest tenth, numbers may not add up due to rounding errors

II. Capture GW/ASR


ASR to augment Lawrenceville groundwater

Yield (MGD) Cost ($/MG) Pre-const Const~4 1 2-4900

Overall 3-5


Yield

Pump & pipe ($M)

Water treatment

($M)

Other capital


Annual WTP cost

($M)

Annual O&M($M)

0

Total ($M)

Total cost1

($M)n/a2 15 1.1 1.8 65193.9


($M)0.7


Costs




Water withdrawalDrinking water NoConcerns over "contaminating" ground water

sources with surface water


1. Indicates total cost in 2010$ over the life of the project, discounted at 3% 2. Utilize existing WTP capacityAll estimates have been rounded to the nearest tenth, numbers may not add up due to rounding errors


Capture


II. Capture Desalination


Desalination option expensive at ~$6,000/MGvd

Option Description Rationale Key challenges~200 MGD desalplant

Long distance movement of water, significant transport cost, relatively high cost, environmental concerns with disposal of waste product (highly concentrated brine)

Timing (years)

Tap large source of potential water supply, relieve dependence on river and creek surface water

Build large desalination plant near Savannah, pump water to nearest Metro area water supply connection

8-10

Yield (MGD)

Cost($/MG)

200 ~6,000

~250+ miles to pump/ pipe water

~200 MGDdesalination plant


II. Capture Desalination


Savannah desalination plant


Overall 8-10


Yield

Pump & pipe ($M)

Water treatment

($M)

Other capital


Annual WTP cost

($M)

Annual O&M($M)n/a

Total ($M)

Total cost1

($M)4,600 30 275 305 21,60013,7309,100


($M)31


Costs



ContentiousWater withdrawalDrinking water Yes (IBT)

Potentially highly sensitive: costly option, possible environmental concerns of disposing highly concentrated saline waste product




Capture


II. Capture


Water quality/treatment options considered Topic: Water quality/treatment


Septic to sewer conversion

Conversion of septic systems to sewer in critical Metro North counties (Gwinnett, Forsyth and Hall)

• Reduction in consumptivewater use i.e. quicker return of wastewater to treatment plants and ultimately back into the system

• High cost of implementation 8–10


II. Capture


Cost, yield and timing estimates for optionsTopic: Water quality/treatment

OptionYield

(MGD) $/MG Pre-const. Const. Total1 ~10

~10

~10

1

5

1

8 – 10

8 – 10

8 - 10

Conversion of septic systems to sewer in Forsyth county 3 6,6001

Conversion of septic systems to sewer in Hall county 4 6,7001

6,6001Conversion of septic systems to sewer in Gwinnett county

Timing (yrs)Timing (yrs)

1. Does not include wastewater treatment cost

II. Capture


Septic to sewer conversion optionsTopic: water quality/treatment

CountyYield

(MGD)Cost

($/MG) Pre-construction ConstructionGwinnettForsyth

Hall

534

111

8 – 108 – 108 – 10

6,6006,6006,700

Overall ~10~10~10


Yield

Stakeholder sensitivity Reasons

Permits required


Some significant sensitivity

No NoEconomics to implement the option are not justified unless population density is significant

Costs


1. Indicates total cost in 2010$ over the life of the project, discounted at 3% Estimates have been rounded to the nearest integer, numbers may not add up due to rounding errors

County

Pump & Pipe Infrastructure

($M)

Water treatment

($M)Total ($M)

Annual O&M($M)

Total cost1

($M)GwinnettForsyth

Hall

000

600420510

2.41.72.9

480336408

480336408

Capital CostCapital Cost


Control

Control: water transfers

III. Control


Water transfer options considered (I)


Lake Burton transfer

Transfer water from Lake Burton in the Savannah basin to the main GwinnettCounty water treatment plant on Lake Lanier for distribution into the GwinnettCounty system

• Potential source of water supply to Metro North counties

• Mountainous watershed produces high unit runoff

• Relatively low environmental impacts to exisitng water body

• Access to relatively high quality water of Lake Burton

• Requires legislative approval to allow transfer of water from outside Metro district Significant increase to flow volumes in Raper Creek

• Lake drawdown may potentially affect highvalue areas

• FERC licensing required for use of GA Power reservoir

• Requires legislative approval to allow transfer of water from outside Metro district

8–10

Lake Hartwell transfer

Transfer water from Lake Hartwell in the Savannah basin to the main GwinnettCounty water treatment plant on Lake Lanier for distribution into the GwinnettCounty system

• Potential source of water supply to Metro North counties

• Relatively low environmental impacts to existing water body

• Access to relatively high quality water of Lake Hartwell

• Requires congressional authorization for withdrawing water for the purpose of water supply

• Potential opposition by South Carolina & downstream communities

• Requires permit to withdraw water


8–10


III. Control


Water transfer options considered (II)


Tennessee basin transfer

Transfer water from the Tennessee basin to the Metro Water district as a long term supply source

• Potential alternate water supply to the entire Metro district

• Sustainable, reliable supply from closest, largest fresh water source available


• Legal access mustbe confirmed

• Significant transport distance, capital costs

8–10

West Point Lake transfer

Transfer water from West Point Lake to a new regional water treatment plant located near Union City, Fulton County. Gwinnettcould obtain finished water from DeKalb and Fulton Counties' connections

• Potential source of watersupply to multiple countiesin Metro district

• Use of water from an existing lake would create fewer environmental impacts and would have high reliability

• Requires congressional authorization for withdrawing water for the purpose of water supply

• Long distance pumping 'uphill' to Atlanta area

8–10


III. Control


Control options yield and cost estimate detail

Option Brief DescriptionYield

(MGD) $/MGPre-

const. Const.Lake Burton transfer


Tennessee basin transfer


Transfer water from Lake Burton in the Savannah basin the main Gwinnett County WTP on Lake Lanier for distribution into the Gwinnett County system

50 415 3 – 5 5 8 – 10

Transfer water from the Tennessee basin to the Metro Water district as a long term supply source

250 890 4 – 5 4 – 5 8 - 10

Transfer water from Lake Hartwell in the Savannah basin the main Gwinnett County WTP on Lake Lanier for distribution into the Gwinnett County system

100 680 3 – 5 5 8 – 10

3 – 5 5Transfers from West Point Lake to a new regional WTPlocated near Union City, Fulton County; Gwinnett obtains finished water from DeKalb and Fulton Counties' connections1

100 1,110 8 – 10

Total

Timing (yrs)Timing (yrs)

1. Interconnection costs not included; WTP – Water Treatment Plant

III. Control


Detailed cost estimates for transfer options

Option

Transport Infrastructure1

($M)

Water treatment

($M)Total ($M)

Annual O&M($M)

Total ($M)

Total cost2

($M)Lake Burton transfer 362 0 362 0.6 0.1 0.7 380

Tennessee basin transfer 1,701 492 2,193 29 69 98 4,075

0

375

Lake Hartwell transfer 1108 1,108 5 0.2 5 1,246

West Point Lake transfer 828 1,203 4 28 32 2,027


($M)


Note: 1. Includes pump and pipe, intake and storage costs associated with transporting water 2. Indicates total cost in 2010$ over the life of the project, discounted at 3% Estimates have been rounded to the nearest integer, numbers may not add up due to rounding errors

III. Control


Lake Burton transfer Topic: Integrated supply management

ScenarioYield

(MGD)Cost

($/MG) Pre-construction ConstructionNo return flow

With return flow5050

3 – 53 – 5

55

416729

Overall 8 – 108 – 10


Yield

Costs

Stakeholder sensitivity Reasons Key Permits required


Highly contentious

• EIS (FERC)• 404 Individual (USACE)• Water withdrawal (EPD)• NPDES Discharge (EPD)• NPDES Stormwater (EPD)

Yes, to allow transfer from outside the

Metro district

Risk of litigation from South Carolina and other downstream communities, Interbasin transfer required, Potential for significant environmental impact


1. Includes pump and pipe, intake and storage costs associated with transporting water 2. Indicates total cost in 2010$ over the life of the project, discounted at 3% Estimates have been rounded to the nearest integer, numbers may not add up due to rounding errors; Source: Technical Advisor Panel

Scenario


($M)

Water treatment

($M)Total ($M)

Annual O&M($M)

Total ($M)

Total cost2

($M)No return flow

With return flow00

0.71.5

380670

0.10.5

362626

362626

Annual Pumping

Power ($M)0.61



Lake Hartwell transfer Topic: Integrated supply management

ScenarioYield

(MGD)Cost

($/MG) Pre-construction ConstructionNo return flow

With return flow100100

3 – 53 – 5

55

6831,073

Overall 8 – 108 – 10


Yield

Costs


Scenario


($M)

Water treatment

($M)Total ($M)

Annual O&M($M)

Total ($M)

Total cost2

($M)No return flow

With return flow00

5.49

1,2501,960

0.20.5

1,1101,730

1,1101,730

Annual Pumping

Power ($M)5.28.5


III. Control



Highly contentious

• EIS (USACE)• 404 Individual (USACE)• Water withdrawal (EPD)• NPDES Discharge (EPD)• NPDES Stormwater (EPD)


Metro district

Risk of litigation from South Carolina and other downstream communities, Interbasin transfer required, Potential for significant environmental impact

1. Includes pump and pipe, intake and storage costs associated with transporting water 2. Indicates total cost in 2010$ over the life of the project, discounted at 3% Estimates have been rounded to the nearest integer, numbers may not add up due to rounding errors; Source: Technical Advisor Panel

III. Control


Tennessee basin transfer Topic: Integrated supply management

Yield


($M)

Water treatment

($M)Total ($M)

Annual O&M($M)

Total ($M)

Total cost2

($M)492 69 98 4,07521931,701

Annual Pumping

Power ($M)29


Yield (MGD) Cost ($/MG) Pre-construction Construction250 3 - 5 5893

Overall 8 - 10


Costs



Highly contentious

• EIS (TVA)• 404 Individual (USACE)• Water withdrawal (EPD)• NPDES Discharge (EPD)• NPDES Stormwater (EPD)


Metro district

Legal access to water needs to be confirmed, Interbasin transfer required


1. Includes pump and pipe, intake and storage costs associated with transporting water 2. Indicates total cost in 2010$ over the life of the project, discounted at 3% Estimates have been rounded to the nearest integer, numbers may not add up due to rounding errors; Costs do not account for return of water to originating basinSource: Technical Advisor Panel

III. Control


West Point Lake transfer Topic: Integrated supply management

Yield


($M)

Water treatment

($M)Total ($M)

Annual O&M($M)

Total ($M)

Total cost2

($M)375 28 32 2,0271,203828

Annual Pumping

Power ($M)4.5


Yield (MGD) Cost ($/MG) Pre-construction Construction100 3 - 5 51,111

Overall 8 - 10


Costs



Highly contentious

• EIS (USACE)• 404 Individual (USACE)• Water withdrawal (EPD)• NPDES Discharge (EPD)• NPDES Stormwater (EPD)

No- would be intra

basin transfer

Interbasin transfer may be required depending on final destination, Potential for significant environmental impact


1. Includes Includes pump and pipe, intake and storage costs associated with transporting water 2. Indicates total cost in 2010$ over the life of the project, discounted at 3% Estimates have been rounded to the nearest integer, numbers may not add up due to rounding errors; Costs do not account for return of water to originating basinSource: Technical Advisor Panel


Unit costs for transfers sensitive to return flow policyUnit costs increase over 50% with mandated return flow requirement to originating basin

683

416

1,073

729

+75%

Without return flow requirementWith return flow requirement

+57%

Transfer optionTransfer option

Lake Burton transfer


Unit cost of yield ($/MG)Unit cost of yield ($/MG)

III. Control

Source: Technical Advisor Panel estimates


Large scale interbasin transfers not economically feasible as temporary solutions

Less-infrastructure intensive transfers potentially viable on temporary basis

1,430

0

200

400

600

800

1,000

1,200

1,400

1,600

~820

~410~730

Long term transferwithout return flow

(50 yr life)

Long term transferwith return flow

(50 yr life)

Temporary transferwithout return flow

(25 yr life)

Temporary transferwith return flow

(25 yr life)

+75% +100% +250%

Wtd. avg. unit cost of cost optimal2020 portfolio~$410/MG

ImplementationScenario

Unit cost ofwater supplied($/MG)

Analysis of Lake Burton transfer under different implementation scenarios1Analysis of Lake Burton transfer under different implementation scenarios1

1. Lake Burton transfer option chosen as an illustrative example since it is the only interbasin transfer that is present in the cost optimal 2020 portfolio of optionsNote: Return flow scenarios assume that the receiving basin returns an equal volume of treated wastewater (as was originally transferred) back to the originating basin, thus requiring supporting infrastructure to enable return flowsSource: Technical Advisor Panel Analysis

III. Control


Proposed transfer from Lake Burton to Gwinnett WTP


90 – 95% of option's cost involved is associated with bypassing Lake

LanierCost efficiency ($/MG) on use of Lake Lanier could

be ~50; currently ~420

90 – 95% of option's cost involved is associated with bypassing Lake

LanierCost efficiency ($/MG) on use of Lake Lanier could

be ~50; currently ~420

Transfer location

Supply line circumvents

Lanier to comply with ruling


Illustration of option: Transfer from Lake Hartwell to Gwinnett WTP

III. Control



Illustration of option: Transfer from West Point Lake to Fulton county

III. Control



Illustration of option: Return of water to originating basin for Lake Hartwell transfer under mandated return flow req.

III. Control


Illustration of option: Return of water to originating basin for Lake Burton transfer under mandated return flow req.

III. Control


Existing interbasin transfers in Georgia

Ocmulgee

Flint

Tallapoosa

Coosa

Oconee

1.9

52.6

Chattah

oochee

5.4

5.4

3.8

17.4

9.3

0.41.4

4.0

0.9

0.1

0.2

Savannah

Ogeechee

Tennessee

2.7Transfer (AAD-MGD)

III. Control

Note: An interbasin transfer of water is any surface water which is withdrawn from one major river basin and discharged, sold to, or otherwise utilized in another major river basinSource: Environmental Protection Division (EPD) Data for 2008

III. Control


Major (> 1 AAD-MGD) interbasin water transfers in Georgia

Water system transferring Basin transfer

Net Transfer (AAD-MGD)

Chattahoochee to Ocmulgee

37.2

15.3

5.0City of Atlanta Chattahoochee to Flint 1.6 Union City, Fayette Co., Clayton Co. Fulton, Fayette, ClaytonCarroll Co…Auth. Chattahoochee to

Tallapoosa3.6 Haralson Co. WSA, Cities of Temple, Mt. Zion

and Villa RicaCarroll, Haralson

Cobb Co…Auth. Coosa to Chattahoochee 16.6 SE. Cobb Co., Douglas Co., Paulding Co., Lockheed

Cobb, Douglas, Paulding

Clayton County Flint to Ocmulgee 5.7 Clayton Co. ClaytonCity of Griffin Flint to Ocmulgee 3.6 E. Spalding Co. SpaldingForsyth County Chattahoochee to Coosa 3.3 NW Forsyth Co., Etowah Water & Sewer

AuthorityForsyth, Dawson

City of Cumming Chattahoochee to Coosa 1.3 NW Forsyth Co. ForsythNewnan Water System

Flint to Chattahoochee 4.0 Coweta Co., City of Newnan Coweta

Eastside Utilities Tennessee to Coosa 2.3 Dalton Utilities Whitfield

Chattahoochee to OcmulgeeChattahoochee to Oconee

Water system receiving transferCounty receiving

transfer

DeKalb County S. DeKalb

Gwinnett Co., Rockdale Co., Walton Co., City of LoganvilleE. Hall County

DeKalb, Rockdale, Henry

Gwinnett County Gwinnett, Rockdale, Walton

City of Gainesville Hall

Source: Environmental Protection Division (EPD) Data for 2008

III. Control


Minor (< 1 AAD-MGD) interbasin water transfers in Georgia

Water system transferring Basin transfer

Net Transfer

(AAD-MGD)

Chattahoochee to Coosa 0.7

0.10.2

City of Social Circle Ocmulgee to Oconee 0.5 East Social Circle WaltonEtowah Water Auth. Coosa to Chattahoochee 0.8 East Dawson Co. DawsonDouglas Co…Auth. Chattahoochee to

Tallapoosa0.1 City of Villa Rica Carroll

Heard Co.…Auth. Chattahoochee to Tallapoosa

0.1 City of Ephesus Heard

Henry Co.…Auth. Ocmulgee to Flint 0.4 City of Hampton, Bear Creek LAS HenryCity of Union Point Savannah to Ogeechee 0.2 City of Union Point GreeneDalton Utilities Coosa to Tennessee 0.9 West Whitfield Co. WhitfieldCity of LaFayette Tennessee to Coosa 0.4 City of LaFayette WalkerMonroe Utility Network

Ocmulgee to Oconee 0.9 City of Monroe, Walton Co. Walton

Gwinnett County Chattahoochee to Oconee 0.4 Walton Co., Cities of Auburn, Braselton and Loganville

Barrow, Walton, Jackson

City of Atlanta Chattahoochee to Flint 0.1 Fayette County FayetteDeKalb County Chattahoochee to

Ocmulgee0.1 Henry Co. Water & Sewerage Authority Henry

Clayton-Rabun Co. W&SA

Savannah to Tennessee 0.1 City of Clayton/North Loop Rabun

Chattahoochee to CoosaChattahoochee to Flint

Water system receiving transferCounty receiving

transfer

Atlanta-Fulton County

N. Fulton Co.

West Lumpkin CountyCity of Greenville

Fulton

City of Dahlonega LumpkinCity of LaGrange Meriwether

Source: Environmental Protection Division (EPD) Data for 2008


Feasibility considerations for option implementation


Number of considerations impact option feasibilityDescription of criteria levels

Considerations Levels

Congressional authorization • Required (eg, if given lake is not authorized for water supply use)• Not required

Legislative change • Required (eg, Interbasin transfers into Metro District)• Not required

Permitting (incremental requirements)

• Not required (or completed)• Some additional permitting required; but some portions already

completed or not required (annotate requirements for given option)• Full Section 404 individual permitting required

Environmental Impact Study • Required (by specific agency)• Not required

Right-of-way / Easements • Required• Not required / already obtained

Qualifies for public funding sources

• Federal funds: State Revolving Funds– Green Project Reserve• Federal funds: State Revolving Funds• Ga Fund / Ga Reservoir Fund• None (or no precedent for use of Ga Fund in this way)

Joint and severable liability clause required

• Required• Not required


Feasibility considerations for conserve options

Option

Congressional Authorization

Required

Legislative change

Required PermittingEIS

Required

Right of way needed

GEFAfunding sources

Joint liability clause

required

Indirect Potable Reuse

No No Full permitting needed

Likely, if contested by downstream interests

Yes GA fund, GA reservoir and water supply fund, DWSRF –base program

Yes

Indi

rect

Pot

able

R

euse

Most criteria not applicable to efficiency programs; Some options qualify for advantageous forms of funding

Source: Technical Advisor Panel, Georgia Environmental Facilities Authority (GEFA)


Feasibility considerations for capture options (I)

Option


RequiredLegislative

change Required PermittingEIS

Required

Right of way needed

GEFA funding sources


required

Big Haynes Creek expansion No No Partial (EPD water withdrawal)

Yes No Yes

Dog River expansion No No Full permitting needed

Yes Yes Yes

Etowah River Dam 1expansion No No Full permitting needed

Yes Yes No

Tussahaw Creek No No Partial (EPD water withdrawal)

Yes No Yes

Newton County Bear Creek No No Full permitting needed

Yes Yes Yes

Hard Labor Creek No No Partial (EPD water withdrawal)

No (complete)

Yes Yes

South Fulton Bear Creek No Yes - Storage Delivery Strategy

(SDS)

Full permitting needed

Yes Yes Yes

Glades No No Full permitting needed

Yes Yes Yes

Richland Creek No No Full permitting needed

Yes Yes Yes

Reservoir NW of Forsyth No Yes (IBT) Full permitting needed

Yes Yes Yes

Reservoir E of Gwinnett No Yes (IBT) Full permitting needed

Yes Yes Yes

Quarries No No Partial (EPD water withdrawal)

Yes Yes N/A No

Res

ervo

ir ex

pans

ion

New

rese

rvoi

rQ

uarr

ies

GA fund, GA reservoir and water supply fund



Feasibility considerations for capture options (II)

Option


RequiredLegislative change


Required

Right of way needed

GEFA funding sources


required

Lawrenceville GW system

No No Partial (EPD water withdrawal)

Yes Yes No

Suwanee/Gainesville GW system


Yes Yes No

Spalding county GW system


Yes Yes No

Bartow county GW system


Yes Yes No

Palmetto GW system No No Partial (EPD water withdrawal)

Yes Yes No

South GA GW system No Yes (IBT) Partial (EPD water withdrawal)

Yes Yes Yes

GW for non-potable use


Yes Yes No

Floyd/Bartow ASR No No Partial (EPD water withdrawal)

Yes Yes Yes

Lawrenceville ASR No No Partial (EPD water withdrawal)

Yes Yes No

Savannah Desalination plant

No No Full permitting needed

Yes Yes GA reservoir and water

supply fund

Yes

Gro

undw

ater

ASR

Des

al

GA fund, GA reservoir and water supply fund,

DWSRF – base program

No precedent; requires GEFABoard approval



Feasibility considerations for control options

Option


RequiredLegislative change


Required

Right of way

Needed

GEFAfunding sources


required

Lake Burton No Yes (IBT) Full permitting needed

Yes Yes Yes

Lake Hartwell Yes Yes (IBT) Full permitting needed

Yes Yes Yes

Tennessee Basin No Yes (IBT) Full permitting needed

Yes Yes Yes

West Point Lake Yes Yes (IBT) Full permitting needed

Yes Yes YesInte

rbas

in tr

ansf

er

GA fund, GA reservoir and

water supply fund1

1. Transfer of finished water qualifies for funding; no precedent to fund infrastructure to return treated wastewaterSource: Technical Advisor Panel, Georgia Environmental Facilities Authority (GEFA)


Select public funding sources for option implementation

FundFund Nature of projects that qualifyNature of projects that qualifyAgencyAgency

• Georgia fund• GA reservoir and water supply fund• Drinking Water (DW) SRF—Base program• DWSRF—Green project reserve• Clean Water (CW) SRF—Base program• CWSRF—Green project reserve

• General water infrastructure• Water supply infrastructure• Public-health drinking water projects• Set aside for specific types of projects• Sewer and non-point projects• Set aside for specific types of projects

Georgia Environmental

Facilities Authority (GEFA)

• Community development block grant program

• OneGeorgia authority equity fund• Appalachian regional commission area

development fund

• To improve housing and economic development (water and sewer) for low and moderate income communities

• Water and sewer projects that create jobs in rural areas• Water and sewer

Georgia Dept. of Community Affairs

(DCA)

• Water and wastewater loans and grants

• Emergency community water assistance grants

• Very low-income housing repair loans and grants (Section 504)

• Water, sewer, storm sewer, and solidwaste projects

• Water and sewer in rural communities in event of natural disaster

• Individual wells in rural areas

US Dept. of Agriculture (USDA) rural development

• Public works and development facilitiesgrant program1

• Individual household well loan program2

• Household water well system grant3

• Water and sewer for economic development in distressed areas

• Individual wells• Individual wells for low-income homeowners

Other

• Clean water Act Section 319(h) grants• Coastal incentive grant program

• Non-point, water quality projects• Coastal and natural projects

Georgia Dept. of Natural Resources

(DNR), Environmental Protection Division

(EPD)

1. Economic Development Administration (EDA), Department of Commerce 2. Southeast Rural Community Assistance Project 3. The Foundation for Affordable Drinking WaterSource: Georgia Environmental Facilities Authority (GEFA)


Potentially ~$285M in GEFA funding available for option implementation in FY 2011

Georgia fund

GA reservoir and water supply fund

Drinking Water (DW) SRF—Base program

DWSRF—Green project reserve

Clean Water (CW) SRF—Base program

CWSRF—Green project reserve

Current balance1

($M)Current balance1

($M)

74.4

27.4

36.8

0

137.2

0

Expected FY 2011 funds ($M)

Expected FY 2011 funds ($M)

55.0

27.4

36.0

6.3

153.0

6.9

~285~275

1. Balance as of September 30, 2009; Does not reflect loans in processSource: Georgia Environmental Facilities Authority (GEFA)


Option qualification for GEFA funds based on designated fund purpose

CWSRF—Green project

reserve

CWSRF—Green project

reserve

Fixture retrofits

Leak abatement

Sub-metering

Conservation pricing

Indirect potable reuse

Non-potable reuse

Conserve

Georgia fund

1. Depends on EPA guidance; might not fund equipment 2. Might not fund equipment 3. If part of a larger project 4. If clearly augments potable supply5. No precedent; Requires GEFA Board approval 6. If addresses needed redundancySource: Georgia Environmental Facilities Authority (GEFA)

Georgia fund

GA reservoir and water

supply fund

GA reservoir and water

supply fund

Drinking Water (DW) SRF—Base

program

Drinking Water (DW) SRF—Base

program

DWSRF—Green project

reserve

DWSRF—Green project

reserve

Clean Water (CW)

SRF—Base program

Clean Water (CW)

SRF—Base program

Reservoir expansions

New reservoirs

Groundwater

ASR

Desalination

Capture

Finished water transfer

Return flows of treated wastewater

Control

(Note 1) (Note 2)

(Note 3)

(Note 4)

(Note 5)

(Note 5)

(Note 5)

(Note 5)(Note 5)

(Note 6)

Option qualifies

Option may qualifysubject to conditions

Water Contingency Planning Task ForceAppendix IV

Option evaluation process and Technical Assumptions

December 2009

1144200-01 TF Appendix IV.ppt

Explanation of option analysis process

Staff and technical advisors defined set of relevant options• Referred to TF input, existing options from GA / Metro area and case studies of other areas• Individual sub-teams iteratively revised / augmented option set throughout process• Teams created key assumptions (locations, distances, etc) to enable cost estimation

Sub-teams generated initial cost / benefit estimates• Estimated incremental yield for each option (ie, yield not yet incorporated in Metro Plan)• Estimated approximate costs bottom-up (eg, pump horsepower required, transport distance, etc)• Capital and operating costs estimated over project lives, discounted back to 2010

Teams applied standard cost metrics across teams where possible, eg• Cost per mile for pipe infrastructure, Cost per horsepower required for pumping stations, Cost per

capacity for water treatment plants....(full list on following pages)

Full technical advisor team conducted "peer review" of all estimates• Sub-teams presented findings to full advisory panel, as well as to water professionals• Assumptions underlying costs, yields challenged and refined• Developed consensus that estimates are directionally correct + reasonably accurate given constraints

Result is yield, cost estimates that are comparable- though not precise, as actual design and implementation analysis were not conducted


Summary of economic criteria used in analyses

CriterionCriterion

Yield: MGD (AAD)

Cost-efficiency: $/MG

Capital required: $M

Definition, unitsDefinition, units

MGD saved or supplied, in Avg Annual Day terms

2010 $ cost per million gallons "saved"

• Includes capital expense, operating expense over project lifetime, discounted to 2010 at 3% real rate

• Total 2010 $ costs divided by total MG yielded over project

$M of capital expense (in 2010$)

What this tells usWhat this tells us

Options' contribution to supply gap

Relative cost efficiency of different types of solutions

• Normalized for timing of costs, enabling comparison of capital intensive options with low capital cost options

Degree of near-term budget demands


Standard cost assumptions used by all teamsCapital expenses (I)

$33,314 x (HP ^ 0.68), where HP = pump horsepower

$375,000 x (Q ^ 0.7), where Q = flow rate (MGD)

Standard used

• All costs in mid-2010 Dollars• ENR Construction Cost Index (CCI) in October

2009: 8,596.31• Assumed CCI for mid 2010: 8,770• Cost per lineal foot = (CCI/653) * D ^ 1.085• Built-in contingency factor of 1.5• Accounts for distance calculated "as the crow flies"• Includes "right of way" cost contingency

Pipeline

• May include single or multiple pumping stations• Cost calibrated for mid-2010 dollars • Includes all associated costs (pumps, housing,

motors, design oversight, etc)• Based on South Central TX Regional Water Plan

construction cost data

Pump stations

• Built-in contingency factor of 1.5• Includes structure cost only• Pumps estimated separately• Cost has been calibrated for mid-2010 dollars

Intakes

AssumptionsCategory

15,050,0002,8519613,020,0002,4668411,020,0002,08672

9,040,0001,712607,100,0001,344486,140,0001,163425,190,000983364,260,000807303,340,00063324

464299245

Cost/lineal foot

2,450,000181,580,000121,290,00010

Cost/mileDiameter (in)


Standard cost assumptions used by all teamsCapital expenses (II)

• Major refurbishment of pumping stations and Water Treatment Plants required every 25 years at ~1/4 to 1/3 of original cost

30% of original capital expense in Year 25Pump & WTP refurb

Water treatment plant capital cost ($M)

Calculate distances "as the crow flies". For remote areas, use factor of 1.2 or as required

Peaking factor = 1.5x average annual day

Standard used

• For standardization, use WTP w/ UV cost estimates

• 2003 planning costs, updated with mid-2010 CCI

Treatment plant

• Pipeline contingency factor of 1.5 includes allotment for distance

Distance

• For treatment structures • For transmission or raw water withdrawal facilities

use appropriate factors• Treatment facilities designed for peak day capacity

Capacity

AssumptionsCategory

540.4300458.1250374.2200288.5150200.0100163.680126.36087.947.626.2

w/UV

402010

Q (MGD)1

1. Peak Daily Demand (MGD) of Capacity


Standard cost assumptions used by all teamsOperating and maintenance expenses

• $0.75 per 1,000 gallons

• 0.50% of initial capital expense per year (pumps)• $1,000 per mile per year (pipeline)

• $0.07 per kWh general• $0.12 per kWh peak power demand• 130 C factor• 0.75 Pump & motor efficiency• 10% of dynamic head for minor friction loss

Standard used

• Total cost for running plant (including electricity)Treatment plant O&M

• Includes all O&M expenses other than electricity• 2 personnel inspect 2x per year + periodic line

cleaning

Pump and pipeline O&M

• Based on 2010 rates (not independently estimating inflation)

• Higher rate used only when ALL pumping assessed to occur during peak power demand periods (very limited cases)

Pumping costs

AssumptionsCategory


Technical Advisors heavily leveraged data from the current Metro Water plan for option evaluation

Key data used in analysis (not exhaustive)

Key data used in analysis (not exhaustive)

Current and projected water demand and supply

– Figure ES-2, Page ES-7

Water usage profile by customer category and end use

– Figure 3-3, Page 3-3

Per capita indoor and outdoor water consumption, by county

– Table 3-2, Page 3-7

District wide results (cost, yield) of conservation measure evaluation

– Table 4-2, Page 4-5

Primary PurposePrimary Purpose

Estimate potential water shortfall in 2012

Estimate yield for conservation measures such as toilet retrofits, showerheads and faucets, pricing etc.

Determine yield that is incremental to what is already in the plan, for conservation measures

Source: MNGWPD Water Supply and Water Conservation Management Plan (May 2009)

Besides quantitative data, plan was referenced extensively for option implementation/policy considerations

Water Contingency Planning Task ForceAppendix V

Survey results

December 2009


Survey #1• Feedback on guiding principles, initial portfolios, individual options• Distributed following TF meeting #2 (Nov 24, 2009)


Recap: Survey #1 examined three main topics

Principles of option

evaluation

Portfolio review

Option assessments

• By what principles do you evaluate potential solutions?– Which considerations matter more/less?

• To what degree would you consider– mandated conservation (vs. incentives)?– state control (vs. local government)?– interbasin transfers into Metro district?– ...

• To what degree do you support the initial 2015 and 2020 solution portfolios? What would you change?

• To what degree do you support a given option for inclusion in the solution portfolio?

• Would you endorse this option even if Lake Lanier were re-authorized as a supply source?

1

2

3

Survey #1


Task Force Survey #1: Context

Survey intended as a means to collect your input• Not a "voting" mechanism• Used to identify areas of agreement and recognize dissenting views• Recognize there are some inherent limitations

– Cost and yield figures, while comparable, are nonetheless estimates– Material has degree of technical complexity- challenging for a non-technical

Task Force– Imperfect information regarding options (given lack of full hydrology studies,

downstream impact studies)

Significant response rate achieved – 64 of 87 (74%)• Respondent pool makeup closely resembles that of overall Task Force

Source: Water Contingency Planning Task Force Survey results

Survey #1


Task Force Survey #1: Summary (I)Principles of option evaluation

Principles of option

evaluation

• General consensus that conservation should be incentive-driven

• Some acceptance of transfers on temporary basis to address a shortfall would be acceptable, but many question feasibility of this

• Recognition that cost efficiency and environmental impact must be balanced

• Notable division over issues of local vs. state control


1

Survey #1


Task Force Survey #1: Summary (II)Portfolio review


Portfolio review

• Reaction to 2020 portfolio generally positive; 2015 more mixed due to high cost and low practicality

• Some concerns cited regarding inability to close 2012 gap and uncertainty around downstream impacts

2

Survey #1


Task Force Survey #1: Summary (III)Option assessment


Feedback provides some logic for "alternate" 2020 portfolio, designed around multiple considerations beyond cost efficiency

Option assessment

• Incentive-driven conserve options stand out as "no regret" moves (ie, supported even with Lanier reauthorization)

• Indirect Reuse, Reservoirs and groundwater supported as "contingency" options (ie, wouldn't support if Lanier reauthorized)

• Leak abatement supported, despite relatively high cost

• Inter-basin transfers show mixed support, strong areas of dissent

3

Survey #1


Executive summaryPrinciples

Fairly strong agreement that conservation should be incentive-driven and that temporary transfers are acceptable to address a shortfall...

• "Should rely on incentives as much as possible, but portions may require mandate"• "Conservation and water efficiency should be the underpinning – both incentives and mandates

should be pursued"• "The problem is large, all options should be in play"

But group is significantly divided over local vs. state control and long-term inter-basin transfers• "Local government would be more effective" vs. "State will need to set some rules and parameters"• "Metro area needs to eat this one" vs. "Transfers [into Metro area] should certainly be considered"• "Moving water around does not solve the problem" vs. "Water transfers are essential and should

be used long and short term"

Most agree that both cost and environmental impact should be considered• "Both [cost and environmental impact] are important and should be given appropriate

consideration"• "Cost effectiveness and environmental impact all need to be balanced"


Survey #1


Georgia should consider establishing market mechanisms to price water and allow transfer of sustainable yields from surplus regions

Solutions should be prioritized first on the basis of minimizing environmental impact, secondly on cost efficiency

Water transfers, if temporary in nature, would be acceptable to address a shortfall

Water should not be transferred from outside the Metro Water District into the District – the Metro District should supply its own needs

Local governments, utilities should retain policy control- versus state directed policy

Conservation should be incentive-driven, not mandated

General agreement on incentive-driven conserv. and temporarytransfers; division noted for 'local/state control', IBT

Key principlesKey principles

416

3

30

11

5

27

916

7

377

3114

1322

9911

5

21111512

512

515

27

Strongly disagree

(1)Disagree

(2)

Neutral/indifferent

(3)Agree

(4)Strongly agree

(5)

3.5

3.1

2.7

3.7

2.9

3.4

Note: n=64Source: Water Contingency Planning Task Force Survey results

Mean scorexx

Survey #1


Georgia should consider establishing market mechanisms to price water and allow transfer of sustainable yields from surplus regions

Solutions should be prioritized first on the basis of minimizing environmental impact, secondly on cost efficiency

Water transfers, if temporary in nature, would be acceptable to address a shortfall

Water should not be transferred from outside the Metro Water District into the District – the Metro District should supply its own needs

Local governments, utilities should retain policy control- versus state directed policy

Conservation should be incentive-driven, not mandated

General agreement on principles across most groupsConservation-group affiliated members often differ

Key principlesKey principles

Business Conservation Government Regional council

Regional councilGovernmentConservationBusiness

Strongly disagree (1)<1.8

Disagree (2)1.8 - 2.8

Neutral/indifferent (3)2.8 - 3.3

Agree (4)3.3 - 4.3

Strongly agree (5)> 4.3

Note: Groups defined as: "Business" - state and local business leaders; "Conservation" - state and local conservation experts; "Government" - state government officials, legislators, local elected officials; "Regional council" - chairs of state's regional water councils Source: Water Contingency Planning Task Force Survey results

(#) = Score assigned to response## - ## = Range of scores shaded

n=40 n=6 n=11 n=7

Survey #1


Executive summaryPortfolios

Task Force members generally expressed positive reaction to 2020 option portfolio• "Broadly based and well considered"• "Good identification of options"• "All should be considered and a combination of these will be necessary over the long term"

Reactions much more mixed for 2015 portfolio – based on cost and practicality• Very costly solution, and not practical; Indirect Potable Reuse a very expensive work-around

Some significant concerns raised...• "Appropriate mix of options, but none solve problem by 2012"• "We should be focusing on infrastructure to ensure that water supply can be shared as of July

2012"• "[Have some] concerns over downstream impacts"

Significant value in deferring to 2020, if we have the flexibility to pursue longer-term solutions• "Good list, time is real issue, not options. List magnifies time issue"• "The options make sense and mix is good if we can wait until 2020 to hit our goal"• "Many options look attractive through 2020, but we need to get started and make commitments

ASAP"• "How confident are we that the court will negotiate the end date?"


Survey #1


Reaction to 2020 portfolio generally positive, while many cite high cost and low practicality of 2015 option portfolio

Reaction to mixReaction to mix

• "Reservoir expansion and creation with conservation measures are the best options"

• "Conservation measures need to be adopted both inside and outside of Metro area"

• "We need to get more out of conservation"• "Concerned that conservation measures

alone aren't going to make a substantive difference"

• "Cannot get there by 2012, and doing it by 2015 would be expensive"

• "Would probably eliminate ASR and indirect potable reuse... not realistic"

• "Indirect potable reuse is a very expensive way to do what we're already doing –drawing water out of the ACF and putting it back after using and treating it"

Notable commentsNotable comments

43

63

17

72

0

25

50

75

100

Business Conservation Government Regional council

% positive

4338

17

47

0

25

50

75

100

Business Conservation

% positive

Regional councilGovernment

2020

2015

Note: groups defined as: "Business" - state and local business leaders; "Conservation" - state and local conservation experts; "Government" - state government officials, legislators, local elected officials; "Regional council" - chairs of state's regional water councilsSource: Water Contingency Planning Task Force Survey results

n=32 n=6 n=8 n=7

n=30 n=6 n=8 n=7

Survey #1


Executive summaryOptions

Group clearly agrees that more can, and should be, accomplished via conservation

• Incentive-driven fixture retrofits + conservation pricing identified as options to be pursued even if Lake Lanier reauthorization is obtained

• Task Force members generally favor incentive-driven implementation, but many recognize that mandates serve a role in contingency situations

– "[Mandates] may not go over well, but [they are] decisive and effective"

In the event of no reauthorization, reservoirs + groundwater supply emerge as front-running "contingency" options

• Desalination, septic conversion, and groundwater from south GA clearly identified as unfavorable options to pursue

– "No support [for desalination] – no way our situation in Georgia requires this measure"

– "[Septic conversions] too small, too expensive, too disruptive to homeowners"


Survey #1


Contrasting "level of support" with "pursue option anyway" identifies "no regret" and "contingency" options

Percent support even with Lanier reauthorization

Strongly oppose

Strongly support

Average levelof support

"No regret""Contingency"

"Unfavorable"

Neutral

Options to consider only if Lake Lanier is

not reauthorized

General agreement to pursue these options even with Lanier reauthorization

Average support based on respondents'

rating of options

Percentage of respondent's that chose "Implement option even with Lanier reauthorization"


0 50 100

Survey #1


Incentive-based conservation generally viewed "no regret"Groundwater supply and reservoirs most favorable "contingency" options


Strongly oppose

Strongly support


"No regret"

"Unfavorable"

Neutral

Source: Water Contingency Planning Task Force Survey results, n=64

0 50 100

Desalination

IndirectPotableReuse


CaptureConserveControl

Incentive-based fixture retrofits +

conservation pricing

"Contingency" Reservoir expansionsGroundwater +

new reservoirs

Mandated fixture retrofits, outdoor water restrictions, clothes washer

rebatesSeptic conversions

Leak abatement, sub-metering, rain sensors

Survey #1


Incentive-based fixture retrofit and conservation pricing viewed as "no regret" options

50 75 100

Conservation pricing(6 MGD, $125/MG)

Cooling towers standards(5 MGD, $170/MG)

Showerheads and faucetsincentives (2.5 MGD, $350/MG)

Toilet retrofit incentives(2.4 MGD, $400/MG)

Conserve

Strongly support

Neutral




Backup Survey #1


0 25 50

Indirect potable reuse(252 MGD, $750/MG)

Capture

Conserve

Control

Following additional conserve measures, reservoirs and groundwater most favored "contingency" options

Strongly support

Neutral



Note: n=64 Source: Water Contingency Planning Task Force Survey results

Big Haynes expansion (47 MGD, $305/MG) Tussahaw expansion (20 MGD, $260/MG) Dog River expansion (48 MGD, $300/MG)

Etowah Dam expansion (41 MGD, $615/MG)NW Forsyth reservoir (88 MGD, $510/MG)

Richland Creek reservoir (larger) (80 MGD, $580/MG)Lawrenceville groundwater (6 MGD, $300/MG)

Spalding groundwater (6 MGD, $325/MG)Bartow groundwater (7 MGD, $345/MG)

Clothes washer rebate (1 MGD, $1100/MG)Clothes washer increased rebate (2 MGD,

$1000/MG)Water restrictions 1 day/week (22 MGD, $10/MG)

Toilet retrofit direct install (14 MGD, $350/MG)Showerhead / faucet direct install (11 MGD,

$250/MG)

Leak abatement (27MGD, $120/MG)Spray rinse valves rebate (0.3 MGD, $120/MG)

MF sub-metering 50% (1.7 MGD, $160/MG)MF sub-metering 100% (3.3 MGD, $170/MG)

Rain sensor 50% (8 MGD, $70/MG)Cooling tower rebates (2.7 MGD, $170/MG)

Backup Survey #1


0 25 50

Forsyth septic to sewer(3 MGD, $6600/MG)

Gwinnett septic to sewer (5 MGD, $6600/MG)

Hall septic to sewer(4 MGD, $6700/MG)

Desalination(200 MGD, $6000/MG)

South GA Groundwater (200 MGD, $1600/MG)West Point Lake transfer (10 MGD, $1100/MG)

CaptureControl

Septic conversions and desalination decidedly "unfavorable" options

Neutral

Strongly oppose




Backup Survey #1


General preference for incentive-based measures, but recognize need for mandates in some instances

Incentive driven

conserv. options1

Alternative mandated conserv.options2

1. Includes toilet retrofit incentives, showerhead/faucets incentives, MF sub-metering (50%), spray rinse valve rebates, cooling tower rebates 2. Includes toilet retrofit direct install, showerhead faucets direct install, MF sub-metering (100%), spray rinse valve direct install, cooling tower standardsNote: n=59Source: Water Contingency Planning Task Force Survey results

• "Just makes sense in too many ways - we have to go after new technology like this [efficient fixtures]"

• "Consider incentives to local water authorities to encourage local practices"

• "[Mandates] may not go over well, but [they are] decisive and effective"

• "Direct install is the only option that results in substantial water savings"

• "Strongly support if cost is paid by property owner"

Level of supportLevel of support

1312

2023

Strongly support

Somewhat support

Somewhat opposed

Strongly opposed

Neutral/ indifferent

27

131918

Strongly support

Somewhat support

Somewhat opposed

Neutral/ indifferent

Strongly opposed

4.0

Mean scorexx

3.7

Survey #1


Comparison of support vs. relative cost-efficiency can highlight outliers, inform alternate portfolio development

Lawrenceville ASR

Leak abatement

Lake BurtonIBT

LakeHartwell IBT

West PointLake IBT

CaptureConserveControl

01,0001,500 500

Strongly oppose

Strongly support

Average level ofsupport

Neutral

Cost efficiency ($/MG)

Outdoor watering

restrictions

Note: n=64; Only options with cost efficiency <$1,500/MG shownSource: Water Contingency Planning Task Force Survey resuls, Technical Advisory Panel analysis

Fixture retrofit

mandates

2015~890

2020~410

BetterWorse

Survey #1


Note: n=64; not every respondent answered every questionSource: Water Contingency Planning Task Force Survey results

1c. Residential clothes washers (increased washer rebates)Yield: 0.6–1.9 MGD, Cost efficiency: $1,000/MGCapital cost: $20M, Timing: 3 yrs

1c. Residential clothes washers (washer rebate program)Yield: 0.2–0.6 MGD, Cost efficiency: $1,100/MGCapital cost: $7M, Timing: 3 yrs

1b. Showerheads and faucets (direct install)Yield: 10.0–11.3 MGD, Cost efficiency: $250/MGCapital cost: $16M, Timing: 3 yrs

1b. Showerheads and faucets (increased incentives)Yield: 1.2–2.5 MGD, Cost efficiency: $350/MGCapital cost: $2M, Timing: 3 yrs

1a. Toilet retrofits (direct install)Yield: 12.5–13.5 MGD, Cost efficiency: $350/MGCapital cost: $43M, Timing: 3 yrs

1a. Toilet retrofits (increased incentives)Yield: 1.4–2.4 MGD, Cost efficiency: $400/MGCapital cost: $7M, Timing: 3 yrs

Detailed survey resultsConserve (I)

OptionOption

371617

12

36151715

31012

2012

227

2223

491021

13

372026

Strongly opposed

(1)

Somewhat opposed

(2)

Neutral/indifferent

(3)

Somewhat support

(4)

Strongly support

(5)

4.2

3.5

4.1

3.5

3.5

Mean scorexx

3.6

Survey #1


3b. Cooling towers (cooling tower standards)Yield: 5.4 MGD, Cost efficiency: $170/MGCapital cost: $7M, Timing: 3 yrs

3b. Cooling towers (cooling tower audits)Yield: 2.7 MGD, Cost efficiency: $170/MGCapital cost: $5M, Timing: 3 yrs

3a. Spray rinse valves (direct install program)Yield: 1.8–2.2 MGD, Cost efficiency: $110/MGCapital cost: $1.1M, Timing: 3 yrs

3a. Spray rinse valves (rebate program)Yield: 0.3–0.7 MGD, Cost efficiency: $120/MGCapital cost: $0.2M, Timing: 3 yrs

2a. Multi family sub-metering (retrofit 100% existing homes)Yield: 3.3 MGD, Cost efficiency: $170/MGCapital cost: $8M, Timing: 3 yrs

2a. Multi family sub-metering (retrofit 50% existing homes)Yield: 1.7 MGD, Cost efficiency: $160/MGCapital cost: $4M, Timing: 3 yrs

Detailed survey resultsConserve (II)

OptionOption

114

1921

0

114

2515

27

161514

04151722

16111522

161414

21

Strongly opposed

(1)

Somewhat opposed

(2)

Neutral/indifferent

(3)

Somewhat support

(4)

Strongly support

(5)

4.0

3.6

4.0

4.1

Mean scorexx

3.9

3.9


Survey #1


Leak abatementYield: 27 MGD, Cost efficiency: $1,200/MGCapital cost: $17M, Timing: 1 yrs

Conservation pricingYield: 6 MGD, Cost efficiency: $125/MGCapital cost: $14M, Timing: 1–3 yrs

4b. Rain sensor irrigation (retrofit 50% existing)Yield: 5.9–8.1 MGD, Cost efficiency: $70/MGCapital cost: $8M, Timing: 3 yrs

4b. Rain sensor irrigation (retrofit 25% existing)Yield: 3.0–5.2 MGD, Cost efficiency: $50/MGCapital cost: $4M, Timing: 3 yrs

4a. Water restrictions (1 day/week schedule)Yield: 14.6–21.5 MGD, Cost efficiency: $10/MGCapital cost: $0M, Timing: 3 yrs

4a. Water restrictions (no daytime watering)Yield: 4.9–7.2 MGD, Cost efficiency: $10/MCapital cost: $0M, Timing: 3 yrs

Detailed survey resultsConserve (III)

OptionOption

25516

27

12717

27

1210

2122

210

2122

4119

1418

61291315

Strongly opposed

(1)

Somewhat opposed

(2)

Neutral/indifferent

(3)

Somewhat support

(4)

Strongly support

(5)

3.3

3.6

4.1

4.1

4.2

Mean scorexx

4.1


Survey #1


Grey water reuse retrofitYield: 23 MGD, Cost efficiency: $15,000/MGCapital cost: $3,300M, Timing: 2 yrs

Non-potable reuse (golf courses, parks)Yield: 3 MGD, Cost efficiency: $2,000/MGCapital cost: $111M, Timing: 4 yrs

Direct potable reuseYield: 250 MGD, Cost efficiency: $1,700/MGCapital cost: $5,600M, Timing: 4 yrs

Indirect potable reuse (6 county)Yield: 250 MGD, Cost efficiency: $950/MGCapital cost: $2,800M, Timing: 4 yrs

Pipeline replacementYield: 3 MGD, Cost efficiency: $51,000/MGCapital cost: $1,184M, Timing: 1 yrs

Detailed survey resultsConserve (IV)

OptionOption

71117

1012

14

191913

7121416

7

14151620

106

101416

Strongly opposed

(1)

Somewhat opposed

(2)

Neutral/indifferent

(3)

Somewhat support

(4)

Strongly support

(5)

3.4

3.9

3.1

3.2

Mean scorexx

3.7


Survey #1


Hard Labor Creek reservoirYield: 41 MGD, Cost efficiency: $1,000/MGCapital cost: $625M, Timing: 10 yrs

Newton Bear Creek reservoirYield: 20 MGD, Cost efficiency: $780/MGCapital cost: $225M, Timing: 10 yrs

Etowah River Dam No. 1 reservoir expansionYield: 41 MGD, Cost efficiency: $615/MGCapital cost: $350M, Timing: 10 yrs

Tussahaw Creek reservoir expansionYield: 20 MGD, Cost efficiency: $260/MGCapital cost: $64M, Timing: 10 yrs

Dog river reservoir expansionYield: 48 MGD, Cost efficiency: $300/MGCapital cost: $230M, Timing: 10 yrs

Big Haynes Creek reservoir expansionYield: 47 MGD, Cost efficiency: $390/MGCapital cost: $270M, Timing: 10 yrs

Detailed survey resultsCapture (I)

OptionOption

691317

9

5513

1911

247

2616

2382122

325

2323

226

2422

Strongly opposed

(1)

Somewhat opposed

(2)

Neutral/indifferent

(3)

Somewhat support

(4)

Strongly support

(5)

4.1

3.9

3.5

3.3

Mean scorexx

4.1

4.0


Survey #1


New reservoir E of GwinnettYield: 50 MGD, Cost efficiency: $1,300/MGCapital cost: $965M, Timing: 10 yrs

New reservoir NW of ForsythYield: 88 MGD, Cost efficiency: $510/MGCapital cost: $660M, Timing: 10 yrs

Richland creek reservoir (larger)Yield: 80 MGD, Cost efficiency: $580/MGCapital cost: $620M, Timing: 10 yrs

Richland creek reservoir (planned)Yield: 35 MGD, Cost efficiency: $725/MGCapital cost: $340M, Timing: 10 yrs

Glades reservoirYield: 85 MGD, Cost efficiency: $620/MGCapital cost: $800M, Timing: 10 yrs

Fulton Bear Creek reservoirYield: 9 MGD, Cost efficiency: $700/MGCapital cost: $95M, Timing: 10 yrs

Detailed survey resultsCapture (II)

OptionOption

68131512

347

2417

338

2415

547

2613

47921

13

6613

1911

Strongly opposed

(1)

Somewhat opposed

(2)

Neutral/indifferent

(3)

Somewhat support

(4)

Strongly support

(5)

3.4

3.6

3.8

3.9

3.4

Mean scorexx

3.7


Survey #1


Bartow county GW systemYield: 7 MGD, Cost efficiency: $345/MGCapital cost: $11M, Timing: 4 yrs

Spalding county GW systemYield: 6 MGD, Cost efficiency: $325/MGCapital cost: $7M, Timing: 3 yrs

Suwanee/Gainesville GW systemYield: 5 MGD, Cost efficiency: $375/MGCapital cost: $10M, Timing: 3 yrs

Lawrenceville GW systemYield: 6 MGD, Cost efficiency: $300/MGCapital cost: $5M, Timing: 3 yrs

Large QuarryYield: 35 MGD, Cost efficiency: $1,200/MGCapital cost: $750M, Timing: 5 yrs

Small QuarryYield: 15 MGD, Cost efficiency: $1,010/MGCapital cost: $95M, Timing: 4 yrs

Detailed survey resultsCapture (III)

OptionOption

2410

2117

2310

2018

2592117

2592118

29

18179

24

182012

Strongly opposed

(1)

Somewhat opposed

(2)

Neutral/indifferent

(3)

Somewhat support

(4)

Strongly support

(5)

3.6

3.4

3.9

3.9

3.9

3.9

Mean scorexxNote: n=64; not every respondent answered every questionSource: Water Contingency Planning Task Force Survey results

Survey #1


Savannah desalination plantYield: 200 MGD, Cost efficiency: $6,000/MGCapital cost: $13,730M, Timing: 10 yrs

Lawrenceville ASRYield: 4 MGD, Cost efficiency: $900/MGCapital cost: $19M, Timing: 4 yrs

Floyd/Bartow ASRYield: 20 MGD, Cost efficiency: $1,840/MGCapital cost: $450M, Timing: 5 yrs

GW for non-potable useYield: 15 MGD, Cost efficiency: $155/MGCapital cost: $8M, Timing: 3 yrs

South GA GW systemYield: 200 MGD, Cost efficiency: $1,600/MGCapital cost: $2,650M, Timing: 10 yrs

Palmetto GW systemYield: 2 MGD, Cost efficiency: $375/MGCapital cost: $3M, Timing: 4 yrs

Detailed survey resultsCapture (IV)

OptionOption

2211813

3

6101919

2

7918

136

2511

2017

13111115

5

251023

14

Strongly opposed

(1)

Somewhat opposed

(2)

Neutral/indifferent

(3)

Somewhat support

(4)

Strongly support

(5)

3.8

2.8

3.8

3.0

3.0

2.4

Mean scorexxNote: n=64; not every respondent answered every questionSource: Water Contingency Planning Task Force Survey results

Survey #1


Hall septic conversionYield: 4 MGD, Cost efficiency: $6,700/MGCapital cost: $408M, Timing: 11 yrs

Forsyth septic conversionYield: 3 MGD, Cost efficiency: $6,600/MGCapital cost: $336M, Timing: 11 yrs

Gwinnett septic conversionYield: 5 MGD, Cost efficiency: $6,600/MGCapital cost: $480M, Timing: 11 yrs

Detailed survey resultsCapture (V)

OptionOption

1216

12125

121512135

121512135

Strongly opposed

(1)

Somewhat opposed

(2)

Neutral/indifferent

(3)

Somewhat support

(4)

Strongly support

(5)

2.7

Mean scorexx

2.7

2.7


Survey #1


Tennessee basin transferYield: 250 MGD, Cost efficiency: $893/MGCapital cost: $2,193M, Timing: 10 yrs

West Point Lake transferYield: 100 MGD, Cost efficiency: $1,110/MGCapital cost: $1,203M, Timing: 10 yrs

Lake Burton transferYield: 50 MGD, Cost efficiency: $417/MGCapital cost: $362M, Timing: 10 yrs

Lake Hartwell transferYield: 100 MGD, Cost efficiency: $683/MGCapital cost: $1,108M, Timing: 10 yrs

Detailed survey resultsControl

OptionOption

8481916

1214146

11

9611

1811

10712

21

6

Strongly opposed

(1)

Somewhat opposed

(2)

Neutral/indifferent

(3)

Somewhat support

(4)

Strongly support

(5)

Mean scorexx

3.6

2.8

3.3

3.1


Survey #1


Survey #2 feedback•Feedback on support + endorsement of 2020 portfolios•Distributed following TF meeting #3 (Dec 11, 2009)


Executive summaryPortfolio endorsement

When asked which portfolio they would endorse, Task Force members chose "Alternate" portfolio by a narrow margin

• While almost all recognize the need for, and are willing to endorse mandates in a "dire" situation, significant proportion feels strongly that initial implementation be incentive-based

However, all report generally high levels of support for both, indicating strong endorsement of the common core options

• TF primarily divided over willingness to accept conservation mandates as the "norm"• Many suggest a balanced mix of incentives and mandates as optimal approach

Task Force members do suggest additional consideration/ analysis in three main areas• Analyze potential impact on downstream resources before implementing any option• Evaluate cost-benefit of additional reregulation capacity on the Chattahoochee below

Buford Dam (eg, dredge Morgan Falls reservoir)• Consider developing more widely incorporated, bi-directional system interconnections to

facilitate flexibility in supplying water to areas of need


Task Force members provided feedback on "Primary" and "Alternate" 2020 portfolios

~360~1,660Wtd. Avg. ~460~370~1,970Wtd. Avg. ~47027171,200Leak abatement27171,200Leak abatement80620580Richland creek reservoir (larger)80620580Richland creek reservoir (larger)41350615Etowah River Dam No. 1 expansion88660510New reservoir NW of Forsyth47270390Big Haynes Creek reservoir expansion47270390Big Haynes Creek reservoir expansion1525350Toilet retrofits (direct install program)125375Toilet retrofits (increased rebate program)23375Palmetto GW system23375Palmetto GW system510375Suwanee GW system510375Suwanee GW system711345Bartow county GW system711345Bartow county GW system67325Spalding county GW system67325Spalding county GW system

108250Showerheads and faucets (direct install program)18300Showerheads and faucets

(increased rebate program)

48230300Dog river reservoir expansion48230300Dog river reservoir expansion65300Lawrenceville GW system65300Lawrenceville GW system

2064260Tussahaw Creek reservoir expansion2064260Tussahaw Creek reservoir expansion56170Cooling towers (required standards)36170Cooling towers (rebate program)

36170Multi family sub-metering (retrofit 100% existing units)26165Multi family sub-metering (retrofit 50%

existing homes)

158155GW for non-potable use (parks, golf courses, etc)158155GW for non-potable use (parks, golf

courses, etc)

614125Conservation pricing614125Conservation pricing21110Spray rinse valves (direct install program)0.31115Spray rinse valves (rebate program)

6670Rain sensors (retrofit 50% existing systems)3660Rain sensors

(retrofit 25% existing systems)

7010Water restrictions (no daytime watering)7010Water restrictions (no daytime watering)

Yield (MGD)

Capital cost ($M)

Cost efficiency

($/MG)OptionYield

(MGD)

Capital cost ($M)

Cost efficiency

($/MG)Option

Alternate 2020 portfolioPrimary 2020 Portfolio

Backup

Note: Changes from "primary" to alternate" portfolio include:1) Most aggressive retrofit/efficiency program implementation, and2) Etowah River Dam 1 expansion instead of New Reservoir NW of Forsyth


Respondents reported degree of support for each portfolio, and choice of portfolio to endorse

Backup


TF supports both portfolios nearly equally - slightly favors "Alternate" when asked to choose between the two

Level of supportLevel of supportMost often cited additions,

deletions, concernsMost often cited additions,

deletions, concerns

• "[Add] dredging Morgan Falls" • "[Remove] daytime watering

restriction – it is not sustainable"• "More attention to developing an

interactive piping system [bi-directional] around metro area"Pr

imar

yA

ltern

ate

26

12

23

15

Strongly oppose

Stronglysupport

Support Neutral Oppose

1

99

23

14

Stronglysupport

Support Neutral Oppose Strongly oppose

% of TFmembers

endorsing1

% of TFmembers

endorsing1

40%(23 responses)

47%(27 responses)

1. When asked which portfolio they endorse, 14% (8 respondents) chose "Other"Note: n=58; mean score reported on scale of 1 to 5, where 1 = "Strongly oppose" and 5 = "Strongly support"Source: Water Contingency Planning Task Force Survey #2

3.7

3.7

• "[We should] pursue a new reservoir NW of Forsyth"

• "We need to deal w/ septic tanks and their consumptive nature"

• "Concern is simply that we haven't identified funds needed to implement mandates"

Mean scorexx


Mandates deemed acceptable in "dire" situation, but general preference for incentive-based conservation

• "I do believe that expanding the Etowah river dam would be easier politically than permitting and building a new reservoir"

• "In general, I support reservoir expansion over new reservoirs, but believe that a new reservoir NW of Forsyth could be a viable alternative if operated as a public utility"

• "It doesn't make sense to remove [from Primary portfolio] a huge potential supply addition [NW Forsyth reservoir] that would be funded with private dollars"

Reservoir expansions vs.

new

• "The 'yet to be analyzed' potential impact on yield to downstream resources remains a serious concern"Downstream

impacts

• "Prefer the primary because I am more inclined to base conservation on incentives and market pricing versus government mandate"

• "[Remove] 'No daytime watering' - this is a 'draconian' measure"

• "Mandatory is not a great approach...I would reconsider if situation was truly dire"

Incentives vs. mandates

Source: Water Contingency Planning Task Force Survey #2

CategoryCategory Illustrative conditions for endorsementIllustrative conditions for endorsement


"Alternate" portfolio favored by narrow marginBusiness members generally favor Primary while other groups favor Alternate

"If you had to choose between these two portfolios, which would you endorse?"

"If you had to choose between these two portfolios, which would you endorse?"

Overall, group endorses Alternate (~47%) over Primary (~40%)

But margin of preference is relatively thin -only 4 responses separate the two

Opinions differ mainly over conservation implementation

• "Conservation measures should be by county [as needed], not by all counties in aggregate"

• "Oppose retrofit measures that require 100% financing by utility, creating additional pressure on water rates"

• "Prefer the primary – I am more inclined to base conservation on incentives and market pricing versus government mandate"

• "If conservation measures are to work, adoption should be mandatory"

1(3%)

14(42%)

18(55%)

3(50%)

2(33%)

1(17%)

4(44%)

3(33%)

2(22%)

8(80%)

2(20%)

Business Conservation Government Regionalcouncil

23(40%)

27(47%)

8(14%)

Overall

Other

Alternate

Primary

0

100

20

40

60

80

% endorsement

n=33 n=6 n=9 n=10 n=58

Source: Water Contingency Planning Task Force Survey #2

Proportion of Task Force endorsing each portfolio, segmented by sub-group

Proportion of Task Force endorsing each portfolio, segmented by sub-group

WATER CONTINGENCY PLANNING TASK FORCE

COMMENTS RECEIVED

FROM

TASK FORCE MEMBERS

AND

OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES

October-December 2009

To access the interactive Index, click on the Bookmarks tab on the upper left

~ 1 ~

Water Contingency Task Force:

Comments received from Task Force members and other interested parties

(the comments below are listed in the order they were received)

Brad Shaw – Home Depot

As I mentioned to Tim yesterday and to Sam Williams today at the APC lunch, The Home Depot

is anxious to help develop solutions on the domestic conservation front. I‟ve already alerted our

relevant merchants here, and we‟re ready to engage as needed.

Larry Gellerstedt - Cousins Properties Incorporated

I think the technical solutions are fairly clear. The key issue is educating the legislature, and the

congressional delegation that this is a critical issue for the State of Georgia, not Atlanta. This is

an opportunity for the leaders to be real leaders on the old reality of two Georgia‟s.

Kit Dunlap - President / CEO - Greater Hall Chamber of Commerce

Water Conservation:

Business

1. Raise money from business community for water conservation education / pr campaign.

Metro Water District is working with adv/pr firm and have the basics, but we have no

money. With plenty of rain right now and full reservoirs, our attention to water

conservation will fade.

2. Coca Cola – Provide and distribute low flow pre-rinse spray valves to restaurants and food

service establishments.

3. Electric Companies – Provide rebates for residential dishwashers and washing machines

that are both Energy Star rated and have a water factor of 4.0 or less.

4. Gas & Electric Companies – Provide rebates for hot water on demand systems.

5. Real Estate Community – Retrofit on resale for both residential and commercial buildings

(includes office and hotels).

State

l. ax credits for: retrofitting large office buildings and hotels; high efficiency commercial

dishwashers and clothes washers with a water factor of 4.0 or less; digital x-ray machines;

adding conductivity meters on cooling towers; dental vacuum pumps; steam sterilizer

retrofits; air-cooled ice machines, connectionless steamers

2. Update state plumbing code: Require high efficiency fixtures; prohibit once through

cooling and require water meters on cooling towers

3. Increase state financial support grants / low interest loans for water and wastewater

infrastructure.

Water Supply

1. Move forward with an actual plan for bringing already identified reservoirs / and new

reservoirs.. on line: speed-up permitting process; actively seek public/private partnerships;

incentives for governments to work together with counties and across county-lines.

2. Identify reservoirs that could be dredged with least bureaucratic hoops.

3. The right person ./ actively seek an agreement to withdraw water from Tennessee River.

4. Identify the right place for a desalinization plant/ with cost for future.

Other

1. Task Force needs minority representation. Suggestions: Robert Brown, Birdell Jackson

2. In the next year, create a Water Executive position (please don‟t call them a czar), that will

be the permanent person / position that will work on these issues everyday. Needs to be

~ 2 ~

high profile that can work with state and federal government, business community... and

hopefully carry-on with transitional changes in Governor / Congress, etc....

3. Educate, Educate, Educate.....the State Legislature

4. Continue education / pr of downstream, upstream..of Metro Atlanta....plan of action for the

next 3 years....from Governor and others.

Senator Judson Hill

Two ideas:

1. A land swap with a quarry or two. The state could research land that could be used for a

rock quarry, purchase the land and expedite permitting for quarry use; then allow an

existing aging quarry to donate their quarry to the state for a deduction. The state can use

the old quarry for a reservoir. At that point the quarry could enter into a 100 year lease for

the new land and the state would receive the revenues. This could shorten the permitting

timeline substantially. There may be 2 to 4 quarries like this.

2. We also discussed the Tennessee border matter. I believe we should actively pursue this

issue - the legal case as well as purchasing water from the TVA, etc. Keeping this issue on

the table may help inspire the other state delegations to meet to discuss these matters.

Sally Bethea – Upper Chattahoochee Riverkeepers

As you probably know, the leadership of the GA Water Coalition is meeting with members of the

task force/staff today and I will be mentioning the issue you and I discussed ‐ the 750 cfs flow

requirement in the Chattahoochee at Peachtree Creek (PTC); however, this flow issue is by no

means the only “absolute” on our list of concerns/recommendations regarding the work of your

water task force.

Regarding the 750 cfs flow, this instantaneous requirement has been in state law since the 1970s;

it was adopted to protect designated uses for downstream waters, including water quality. On

several occasions in the past two years, the state has asked the Corps to use a target flow of 650

cfs at PTC, instead of 750 cfs, to allow more water to be kept in Lake Lanier; yet, the state has

not provided adequate water quality and flow monitoring at the compliance point or downstream

to ensure that designated uses are met. Neither has an appropriate review of impacts been

conducted under NEPA to allow this flow reduction.

We believe that the state should undertake a comprehensive study, working with federal

resources agencies, to determine if the 750 cfs flow is sufficiently protective now, and will be

sufficiently protective in the future given growth projections, to ensure that designated

downstream uses will be met at all times. Until such time as this independent, peer‐reviewed

study is completed and a new regulation is adopted by the state, the 750 cfs flow at PTC must be

met at all times, even during droughts; in addition, the state must establish sufficient flow and

water quality monitoring stations and the data collected must be made easily available to the

public.

Thank you for asking for more detail about this issue. As mentioned above, I will provide you

with other key issues for UCR and the GA Water Coalition after today‟s meeting.

~ 3 ~

Todd Pealock, CEO of the Habersham EMC

Mr. Pealock waned to provided to us with some information on a potential reservoir in

Habersham, which he estimated could provide 30,000 acre-feet of water storage capacity.

Diane Minick, Director, The Upper Etowah River Alliancewww.etowahriver.org

I respectfully suggest that Atlanta also focus on retrofitting buildings in Atlanta to collect the free

rain water using cisterns. This water can be used as grey water to flush Atlanta's toilets or can be

filtered to be used for drinking. Five Season's Brewing Company is leading the way by

collecting all of that free water, filtering it and using it to make their beer. Why can't Atlanta

collect it on as many buildings as possible to use. It will solve several problems:

1. It won't be as costly as taking water from other river basins and piping it to Atlanta;

2. It can be done immediately;

3. It will save money since the need for water from the City will be reduced so peoples water

bills will go down and the water plants cost of energy to clean the water will go down;

4. It will reduce the stormwater volume entering the City's stormdrain system significantly

which will cut down or even eliminate the flooding issues on Atlanta's streets and will

reduce the impact on the storm drain system.

This will also save energy at the waste water treatment plants and possibly eliminate the release

of partially treated sewage to the river. Just think, a 1,000 sq.ft roof in a 1-inch rain will generate

600 gallons of water. According to the Texas Water Harvesting Manual, 0.62 gallons of water

can be collected per square foot of roof per inch of rain. If a roof is 10,000 square feet, in a 1-inch

rain it will generate 6,200 gallons of water. We are getting between 3 and 4 inches of rain today.

That would mean for the 3" rain, 18,000 gallons of water would be available to be used. Think of

how much water is being lost that could be used to solve our water needs.

Bruce Jackson, Partner, Arnall, Golden Gregory www.agg.com

Summary: The South Fulton Municipal Water & Sewer Authority has proposed to build the Bear

Creek reservoir on Bear Creek in South Fulton for the cities of Palmetto, Fairburn and Union

City. The City of Atlanta opposes the project. In the past the Metropolitan North Georgia Water

Planning District has sided with Atlanta. Construction of the Bear Creek reservoir would reduce

the water purchases by the three cities from Atlanta. Of course Atlanta does not want to lose the

revenue from the three cities and by controlling the regions withdrawal and treatment of water,

the three cities will remain dependent on Atlanta for water. Florida and Alabama have also

objected claiming that it might reduce the flow of water into the Chattahoochee from Bear Creek.

Friday's court hearing is a TRO hearing and is an attempt by Atlanta to enjoin further work on the

reservoir application process. The matter relates to Atlanta's contention that the loss of revenue

will make it impossible for Atlanta to comply with the consent decree in the Upper

Chattahoochee Riverkeeper sewage discharge case. This matter is an excellent example of the

impediments to efforts to capture of water and marks the very issues the Task Force is charged

with addressing. Someone from the technical advisory board might want to interview Brad Sears

of Newnan (770-253-3880) counsel to the City of Fairburn, who is very technically

knowledgeable about this matter. He also relates that Atlanta wants to expand its water supply

infrastructure into South Fulton to capture more water revenue, which begs the question of where

such water is going to come from given the ACF case. Brad would have more details on that

matter as well.

http://www.agg.com/

~ 4 ~

Dargan Scott Cole, Carlton Fields Attorneys at Law

Attached for your review is one plan for meeting the immediate needs of the counties affected by

Judge Magnuson's July 2009 ruling in the Tri‐State Water Rights Litigation. The plan uses an

average of each county's actual water use in January for 2007‐2009 as baseline demand and the

average water use in August 2007‐2009 as peak month demand. It then illustrates one scenario

for meeting those immediate needs.

The plan recognizes that some jurisdictions will have water available in 2012 that will not be

available in later years. Therefore, it looks for additional mid‐term and long‐term solutions. In

many cases the short‐term solutions rely on moving large amounts of water from point to point

and an increased reliance on indirect reuse of water. Both situations call for quick action if they

are to be implemented before the July 1012 deadline.

Alec Poitevint – Former Federal Commissioner – ACF & ACT Water Compacts – Member

Ga Water Task Force

The immediate drilling of more wells across Georgia must be part of our “Water Plan.” It is a

process that should have never been „slowed‟ ‐ All obstacles should be evaluated –and within

reason removed.

Bob Gravlee, Production Coordinator/Graphic Designer, Site Selection Magazine

Dear sirs or to whom it may concern:

Okay, this may sound a bit crazy – and I certainly haven‟t researched this – but I‟ve heard

somewhere before that drier westerns states such as Arizona and Nevada and have actually used

underground reservoirs (whether man-made or natural I do not know) to store water for their

growing populations – albeit as a back-up to a drought or deficit in water access. What if

Georgia did the same thing across the state? Albany, Tifton, Valdosta, Columbus, Commerce,

Athens, Augusta, Peachtree City, Douglas, West point, La Grange, Columbus, etc. ... all with

their own reservoirs.

In Georgia it seems to me that geologically we have an abundance of red clay and quartz granite.

Could these natural resources be used to help facilitate the construction of such reservoirs?

Perhaps the more localized education SPLOST could be replaced by a state-wide penny sales tax

to accomplish this end. Federal stimulus dollars could also be used towards this end (if they‟re

not completely earmarked already) and the construction of these reservoirs, I‟m thinking, would

create more than a few jobs.

It would take intentionality and prolonged commitment by politicians and citizens alike. Just a

thought. Also I would seriously urge legislators to remember Governor Perdue‟s public prayer

for rain last summer when we were experiencing a severe drought. Some may argue it was

purely coincidental that following that gesture of faith on his part, and of others who joined him

in prayer, we experienced what is being called now a once in a millennium downpour (i.e.,

specifically the rainfall of the past couple of months) – and this all within a year. And he‟s still

our governor, that is to say this happened during his tenure. Just plain „ol dumb luck? I for one

don‟t think so.

Thanks for your consideration.

~ 5 ~

David Sargent, PhD, Director, Community & Economic Development, Georgia Mountains

Regional Commission

I agree with the three areas of focus and the order of priority.

Conservation – begin the marketing campaign at the grammar school level and keep it in front of

every adult. BP Oil has some good commercials on TV right now as well as IMB regarding the

limited supply, and use, of our water sources.

Capture rain and ground water – a conservative way of saying build the “reservoirs” to replace

the ones that should have been build when the dam was constructed in the 50s‐ the one below the

dam (now Alpharetta), the one on the Chattahoochee, and the one on the Chestatee! I think this

is the most critical of the three due to population growth and weather, two uncontrollable

variables.

Reviewing current controls and management policies. This requires a course on “common sense”

which the US Government is evidently not interested in requiring of any of their Corps

employees. The retired Corps engineer hired to rewrite the current plan explained in his opening

remarks recently at a meeting at Lake Lanier Islands that it would take every bit of the 3 year

contract to rewrite the document because he had so many dignitaries to meet with before he could

begin! Why? I thought he was hired because of his knowledge of the operation not his ability to

apiece elected officials. He confirmed his inability to understand the need with the first slide he

posted showing that every reservoir below Buford Dam was full and water was having to be

released. This was at the time Lake Lanier was about 15 feet below full pool.

So, my recommendation is to begin with an aggressive conservation campaign followed by an

immediate construction plan for new reservoirs since the Corps has proven its inability to

regulate water resources based on existing conditions, no matter what the level of the lake.

David Horger

Conservation:

Mandate implementation of dual flush for all new residential/commercial building in impacted

areas. Offer rebate for dual flush retrofit to consumers in impacted areas.

Resources:

This is a stretch ‐ however, if the surveyed northern border of GA is incorrect, get it right and

start the move to tap the Tennessee River to supply metro ATL.

Current Mgt/Control:

A collaborative compromise with the bordering states must be somehow reached on the amount

of downstream waterflow.

Brad Currey

These are reactions to the Water Contingency Task Force comments dated 11/13/2009 received

from task force members and other interested parties.

Completely absent from this paper is the issue of data. The state, the cities and counties, and the

water utilities need to be collecting, recording and reporting reliable data in a consistent and

comparable manner. This means that we need to meter every use everywhere. We need to

~ 6 ~

measure in gallons, not cubic feet. The data keeper needs to be a disinterested party who can be

relied upon for accurate, dependable analysis of the data and of the forecasts of the utilities and

political subdivisions.

Before decisions are made about measures to be taken by the legislature and the state

government, there needs to be some realistic, reliable cost/benefit analysis so that we spend our

money where we get the most bang for the buck. In this connection, the state needs to provide

for substantial funding and incentives to make certain that the policies implemented by the

utilities and local governments are the most efficient and appropriate rather than those that are

politically driven.

Consideration should be given to regional water authorities that can coordinate such matters as

tiered water rates, conservation standards and oversee the location and management of reservoirs

where appropriate.

In the task force comments dated 11/13/2009, on page 5 under numbered paragraph 7, Georgia

Water Coalition, it is stated that "the existing ban on interbasin transfers within the Metropolitan

North Georgia Water Planning District must remain inviolate." I believe that statement is

incorrect and that under current state law interbasin transfers within the District are permitted, but

not from outside the District into the District. On page 6, numbered paragraph 10, there is a call

for immediate drilling of more wells. Elsewhere in this paper, there is mention of limitations on

the use of septic tanks.

These are two contentious issues where the facts are apparently still unclear. We need to know

whether drilling wells makes any sense in North Georgia because it is said to rest on solid

granite. We also need to have some agreement on whether septic tanks represent a consumptive

use or provide a consistent flow of clean water into streams especially during droughts. The data

on these matters appears to me to be very sketchy, suggesting that more detailed research needs

to be a high priority before we make some foolish mistakes.

The radioactive issue of interbasin transfers must be addressed. Common sense suggests that

during periods of heavy rainfall, storage of water in reservoirs near major creeks and rivers where

some of the water in the reservoir will end up in a different river basin should not be prohibited.

A perfect example is the Dawson County location currently belonging to the City of Atlanta.

Also missing from this document is any reference to a leadership role to be played by the State of

Georgia in planning, funding, overseeing and/or managing the development of reservoirs,

decisions about consistent conservation practices, oversight of rate structures, building standards,

and other related water supply functions.

The comments on page 4 about a "water executive position" points in this direction but needs to

be fleshed out. What is going on right now is that everybody is stumbling around attempting to

avoid the issue of vigorous leadership, consistent management and the use of a centralized

authority that can be held accountable. Maybe we do not need a "czar." We do need someone

with authority, responsibility, carrots, sticks and leadership working on water issues full time.

~ 7 ~

Robbie Hewitt, Smyrna

Being a real estate agent who once lived/worked in San Diego, CA you should look at how the

county there addresses the retrofitting of low flow water fixtures at the change of ownership. I

know my industry will fight this as they already have but let them. It needs to be mandated that at

the change of ownership, every residential property will be retrofitted with lowflow fixtures. I

suggest the seller be responsible for doing so. This way buyers will not let sellers off the hook

for something the law requires and they perceive as a freebee. Every seller will comply by using

the cheapest product they can but experience in San Diego proves buyers will cooperate with

sellers to pay any additional cost to get what they want in the way of fixtures. A rebate from the

counties or water systems will make the law more palatable.

Mandate all car washes recycle water.

Put outdoor water restrictions in place permanently, including those who use well water. Stop

the issuance of private well permits where public water is available in an effort to stop the

depletion of the water table and the gross mis-use of our water resource as it will no longer be a

free commodity for those who would put in wells.

Rick Gray

An editorial column in today's AJC regarding Georgia's water task force prompted me to ask a

few questions regarding Georgia's use of water for "agricultural purposes"........

I currently live on a private 28 acre lake on the headwaters of Lake Allatoona. Much to the

surprise of the homeowners on this lake, the Ga EPD, in the midst of our ongoing "water wars"

with Florida and Alabama, and deep into our recent Level 4 drought, issued an agricultural water

withdrawal permit allowing a golf club (with property along a portion of the lake) to withdrawal

millions of gallons of water from the lake each month (for the purpose of watering a 225 acre

golf course), this withdrawal causing the lake's water level to drop as much as 3 inches/day.

Needless to say, these water withdrawals result in the lake having no outflow for months at a

time, thus precluding any use of the water downstream, while the golf club has essentially free

use of this water, the vast majority of which is lost via evaporation or transpiration. Given this

situation, I would like to ask you to address the following questions:

How many such "agricultural" water withdrawal permits has the EPD issued (ie, permits for

recreational as opposed to for true agricultural water use)?

Why are they still issuing such permits?

How many gallons of water per year are these permittees withdrawing?

How many individuals or households in Georgia could this water support if it wasn't being used

to water golf courses, etc?

Why are these permittees being allowed to use "waters of the state" for free, thus having no

incentive for conservation, when we are threatened with ongoing and potentially ever worsening

water supply issues in this state?

Why are these permittees allowed to use this water essentially free of charge, while the cost of

water used for drinking, bathing, etc increases steadily, in part to promote conservation and

discourage excessive water use given our threatened water supply?

How does the issuance of these permits affect the thoughts and actions of federal judges and the

public officials of Alabama and Florida?

~ 8 ~

Why should our opponents in the "water wars" take us seriously when we have such little

concern about how we conserve the water we claim is so scarce and valuable?

Thank you for considering this matter. I look forward to your response.

Arlene D. Davis, RE/MAX Vidalia

I strongly urge this water task force to consider the following when making a decision to take to

the Governor regarding the water issues Georgia is currently facing. I strongly oppose anything

that would impact private property rights including but not limited to:

• Inefficient point of sale government mandates such as retrofit at resale. This would place

an unnecessary burden on homeowners.

• I oppose the public trust doctrine.

• I promote a riparian water rights system and the water rights of property owners.

• I support efforts to increase water supply levels by expediting the permitting and

construction of new water supply reservoirs and increasing the capacity of existing

reservoirs.

Lou Irby, Lou Irby Realty

As a REALTOR® in the State of Georgia I am opposed to anything that places an unnecessary

burden on the property owners. We have enough burden already with taxes and other mandates

already in place. I hope you will please consider these factors when you make your

recommendations to the Governor.

No one should question the need for better conservation of Georgia's water supply...Punishing

property owners is NOT the answer. Our state and local governments are and have been

negligent in building and maintaining reservoirs to meet our needs when droughts occur. Enough

money is wasted by all government agencies to easily cover the cost of creating a workable

solution.

Governmental agencies never seem to understand that when an economic slow-down occurs that

the income of tax-payers is reduced -- yet elected officials look for higher taxes from the

"reduced income" taxpayer to keep their non-essential projects funded. They are also quick to

pass mandates for expensive updates and/or repairs for homeowners instead of using "common

sense" requests to work together to attain a solution. As a Realtor and homeowner I hope the

members of the Water Contingency Task Force will work diligently for a common sense solution

-- and consider the cost vs the impact on Georgia's citizens.

Octavio Perez, Dalton

Please consider this on your meeting November 23:

I supports your efforts on increase water supply levels by expediting the permits and construction

of new water supply reservoirs and/or increase the capacity of existing reservoirs.

I support the riparian water rights system as well as the water rights of property owners.

I support responsible market based conservation measures as conservation pricing and retrofit

incentives as rebates.

I oppose the public trust doctrine, and inefficient point-of-sale government mandates such as

retrofit at resale.

~ 9 ~

Sandi Green, 2008 President, Columbus Board of Realtors, Columbus, GA

As a realtor, I look at water issues not only as a resident myself but also as a representative of the

many, many Georgia residents that I have represented in my 30+ years as a realtor.

I emphatically oppose the following:

1) Retrofitting existing homes at resale

2) The Public Trust Doctrine

I support:

1) Responsible conservation measures (conservation pricing and retrofit incentives/rebates)

2) Riparian water rights system

3) Water rights of property owners

4) All efforts to increase water supply levels by encouraging permitting and construction of

new water supply reservoirs and the increasing of capacity of existing reservoirs.

I would greatly appreciate your efforts in eliminating the retrofitting and Public Trust Doctrine

issues and your support of responsible conservation measures, riparian water rights, rights of

property owners, and the addition/capacity of water supply reservoirs.

Thank you for your support.

Carol Moson, The Moson Group, RE/MAX Greater Atlanta

I am a REALTOR in Cobb County and would like to voice my opinion regarding topics before

the water task force.

• Myself, along with GAR (Georgia Association of REALTORS) oppose inefficient point-of-

sale government mandates such as retrofit at resale as this is a burden on the already

struggling homeowner.

• Myself along with GAR support responsible market based conservation measures such as

conservation pricing and retrofit incentives such as rebates.

• Myself along with GAR support a riparian water rights system and the water rights of

property owners. This is absolutely critical.

• Myself along with GAR oppose the public trust doctrine.

• Myself along with GAR support efforts to increase water supply levels by expediting the

permitting and construction of new water supply reservoirs and increasing the capacity of

existing reservoirs.

We hope you take our voice seriously as it is crucial that these issues are properly addressed and

the rights of our citizens to own and enjoy real property are protected.

Jack Shanks

In today's market with resale portion being so difficult this requirement would place an expensive

and unnecessary cost for the Seller. The current resale market has prices of 2003 or 2004 market.

I think there are more efficient ways to save water.

~ 10 ~

Rosan Hall, Keller Williams Realty Atlanta North

As a Realtor of some 17+ experience, I can say without a doubt that placing this additional

burden on the market now is unconscionable. There are so many more ways to cure this problem

without hurting the housing industry just as it may and I say that conditionally, may be coming

out of a deep recession. Why not curb sprinkler systems using water that flows down gutters

because people do not take the proper time to adjust them.

What about fixing bad or aged city and county water pipes which break and cause huge amounts

of lost water as well as inconvenience to homeowners and businesses alike? Why not concentrate

on making sure that the new houses built must have low flow plumbing? If this is truly an effort

to fix the problem, why not offer incentives to make these changes?

Homeowners are already taking a huge hit. They are trying to sell houses which are not

appraising and then the underwriters are cramming down the prices further because the Atlanta

area is in a declining market. And, if we are in a declining market can you imagine what's

happening in the rest of Georgia.

The economy cannot sustain another hit. For goodness sake think of something worthwhile which

will help the housing market grow and not put additional burdens on Realtors who have been hit

so hard already.

Edwin Farmer, Water Optimizer http://WaterOptimizer.com

Optimizer is an intelligent irrigation controller which can operate as a standard time clock

controller as well as modes utilizing weather data or soil moisture sensors. The controller is also

capable of transmitting data including run time, soil moisture levels, etc, via the Water Optimizer

web site to the entity managing the system. I would very much appreciate you forwarding this

information to the task force staff and we would be happy to come to Atlanta to demonstrate the

systems capability. Tests from our installations around the country as well as tests conducted by

the University of Florida have shown water savings of up to 70% when using the moisture sensor

operation mode vs time clock controllers.

The Florida Legislature in the 2009 session passed legislation which allows intelligent controllers

utilizing soil moisture sensors and having reporting capability to be exempt from watering

restrictions which are in place over most of the state.

This technology allows users to conserve irrigation water and self report the usage to government

as opposed to government imposed time restrictions on irrigation with enforcement required to

verify compliance.

Chuck Jonaitis, Results realty Service

I am against mandated retrofit plumbing fixtures. I agree with the stand GAR has taken as listed

below. Feel free to contact me if you need further information or have any questions. Thank you

for your attention.

• GAR opposes inefficient point-of-sale government mandates such as retrofit at resale

• GAR supports responsible market based conservation measures such as conservation

pricing and retrofit incentives such as rebates.

~ 11 ~

• GAR supports a riparian water rights system and the water rights of property owners.

• GAR opposes the public trust doctrine.

• GAR supports efforts to increase water supply levels by expediting the permitting and


reservoirs.

Peggy Desiderio, Keller Williams Realty Atlanta North

To whom it may concern,

As a member of the Georgia Association of Realtors and an active real estate agent in Georgia, I

oppose the proposal that homeowners be required to retrofit their homes with low flow toilets and

fixtures prior to resale of their homes.

Maggie Crowe, Perfect Choice Realty

To whom it may concern:

GAR Talking Points:








reservoirs.

I totally support the Georgia Association of Realtors talking points. My reasons are

housing, families are what this economy, society and nation rest upon. It is hard enough for hard

working Georgians to get into homes and requiring more mandates on homes makes it even

harder. Georgians believe in property rights and freedom of choice. Don't take away any of

these, but give incentives to go the way of water conservation. There are many ways to do it, but

not the way taking rights or freedom of choice away.

John Shea, President, Walton-Barrow Board Of Realtors

I am fully in support of GAR's position and am very pleased to be involved with an organization

such as this that will protect property owners and our Business.

Jackie West, Harry Norman, realtors, Clayton

The economy is in a severe money crunch. Home sales are struggling to get back on tract and for

an owner suddenly be slapped with the expense of retrofit there home at resale.

As a Realtor in Georgia I OPPOSE this inefficient point-of-sale government mandate. I

OPPOSE the public trust doctrine. GAR SUPPORT efforts to increase water supple levels by

expediting the permitting and construction of new water supply reservoirs and increasing the

capacity of existing reservoirs. GAR supports responsible market based conservation measures

such as conservation pricing & retrofit incentives such as rebates. GAR SUPPORTS a riparian

water rights system and the water rights of property owners.

~ 12 ~

Mark Burson

Please Consider:

There is an affect on changing water flow from waste water receptacles in residential housing.

Decreasing flow does not give adequate force or measure to clear lines into sewer and septic

systems. This measure will increase stoppage, and expense to homeowners who do not

understand the process. Those who do will double flush and increase water usage as a net effect.

There are more proficient measures that will facilitate the desired effect. Offering incentives and

rebates for conservation measures, planning to increase state water reservoir capacity, improved

measures for storm water reclamation, and seasonal conservation education and implementation

measures would be collectively more effective than forced retrofitting at resale of residential

housing units.

Lee Marlin, Realtor, Keller Williams Realty Atlanta North

To the Georgia Water Task Force:

To presume that Realtors can and should act as the unpaid Low Flow Toilet police whenever a

home is resold, presumes that we will spend our time surveying all the fixtures in / on a property

and accurately assess whether a particular toilet is low flow. Are Realtors equipped to do this?

I've been a Realtor for over 5 years and until recently had never sold a home where this was a

question. The property was located in DeKalb County. Fortunately, I was on-site with a home

inspector who did know what to look for and where to look for it. Policing and documenting that

homeowners are in compliance is a regulatory matter that is best left to people who have the

training to do it and are paid to do it - not Realtors.

There are quite a few other water conservancy approaches that bear more urgent scrutiny and

ultimately result in more water conservation, namely:

• GAR opposes inefficient point-of-sale government mandates such as retrofit at resale.

Consequences: Yet another regulatory mandate that will be oppressive to voters who need to sell

their homes and will cause them to spend money on their homes prior to going on the market.

Realtors want to remove impediments that cause people to stall buying or selling property. They

also want to get our economy moving by getting the Georgia real estate industry moving.



Consequences: Water wasters should pay more when they create "too much" or unreasonable

demand for water and waste water treatment, at the expense of everyone else. This should affect

both homeowners and businesses.


Consequences: We want to encourage people who want to own properties that have water

resources to take care of them so that everyone benefits from them.

~ 13 ~




reservoirs.

Consequences: Our past severe drought showed that our communities and the State of Georgia

as a whole had been lax in providing adequate capacity to store the water that our citizens and

industries need. As a result, we suffered through several years of drought and severe drought.

As budget permits, our legislators should be planning how we can add new reservoirs and new

capacity to the statewide systems.

Sandra Queen, Metro Brokers, GMAC Real Estate

To Whom It May Concern:

I am against this requirement! It will in effect shut down all sales of older homes!

Most people will not be able to afford to do all that is required to sell their house. Since the

economy is in a bad place now, I would think that you would not want to do anything to further

stall it.

This also intrudes on private property homeowner's rights!

If this is passed, you are effectively telling private property owners that they cannot sell their

property without government invasion.

This is totally unacceptable!

I would not be able to sell my condo, and condo sales are in the toilet anyway, why make it

worse?

Realtors provide a stimulus to the economy, by sales and when someone buys a new home, they

do go out and buy furnishings, etc., further providing sales!

Our economy needs all the help it can get right now, lets not further cripple it by cutting down on

the number of homes that can be sold and making it more difficult for realtors to sell!

Joan Boudreau, Keller Williams Realty Duluth,


We have received the following email from GAR:

Members of the task force have informed GAR that all options are on the table including an

unfunded government mandate that all homes in Georgia be retrofit with low flow plumbing

fixtures prior to resale.

I am definitely opposed to such a mandate. Do we not have a hard enough time selling homes

these days? Prices are down 30%, unemployment is sky high, and now you want to put more

restrictions on the home owner, specifically, the home seller? Do you know how many people

~ 14 ~

have to sell their homes (short sales, foreclosures, etc)? That means that can‟t even pay their

mortgage let alone replace their toilets before they can sell?

The timing is not good for this. I also agree that it intervenes with our personal property rights.

Mark Teytel, Realty 1st

Please consider the following positions Mark Teytel and Realty 1st developed on the issues

tackled by your water task force:

• I oppose inefficient point-of-sale government mandates such as retrofit at resale

• I support responsible market based conservation measures such as conservation pricing and

retrofit incentives such as rebates.

• I support a riparian water rights system and the water rights of property owners.




reservoirs.

My position is also supported by the Georgia Association of Realtors.

Dale Herdandez, Metro Brokers/GMAC Real Estate


As a professional Realtor® in the State of Georgia, I am dismayed at the task force‟s

consideration of an unfunded government mandate that all homes in Georgia be retrofitted with

low flow plumbing fixtures prior to resale.

The real estate industry has had it hard enough these past two years!

If this plumbing retrofit is required, this will further depress the real estate industry and will be a

hardship on everyone – not just buyers, sellers and realtors! I think we have all seen that as real

estate goes, so follows the economy!

I beg you to please consider the following alternative measures for water conservation, which I

whole-heartedly support:

1. Responsible market-based conservation measures such as conservation pricing and retrofit

incentives such as rebates.

2. Efforts to increase water supply levels by expediting the permitting and construction of new

water supply reservoirs and increasing the capacity of existing reservoirs.

Please further note that as a member of the Georgia Association of Realtors:



Thank you for your thorough consideration of the effects of your recommendations on the real

estate industry and Georgia‟s economic health in general.

Elizabeth Chamberlin, Harry Norman Realtors, Peachtree City,

I am strongly opposed to any government mandate to retrofit all homes for sale with low flow

devices.

~ 15 ~

Jim Smith, Willingham Loan & Realty Co, Macon

I am an active member of the Georgia Association of Realtors.

I am writing you to voice my support for the position of GAR as follows:

• GAR opposes inefficient point‐ of‐ sale government mandates such as retrofit at resale

• GAR supports retrofit incentives such as rebates.





reservoirs.

When I was a young man there were government incentives to encourage pond building and

water conservation. Those programs worked well and thousands of ponds were built that

improved the quantity and quality of water in Georgia.

Please consider policies that will encourage conservation and water management in lieu of

policies that will unnecessarily penalize property owners.

Please consider our concerns when making water policy for our State.

Jack Finn, Prudential GA Realty

Please do not do anything that will have a negative impact on the real-estate market as the Gov

proposed bill would do.

Regarding re tooling homes that are being sold to adjust the water presser.

Nan Coppenrath, Realtor

I am opposed to any change in water policy that would negatively impact private property rights,

especially any point of sale mandate such as required retrofit at resale.

Our Georgia homeowners are suffering enough with the loss of home value (32% in Cherokee

County), and a law requiring them to spend more money, which a lot of them don‟t have, before

they can sell to the one Buyer who made a passable offer, is inhumane.

Please consider the carrot approach first: Offer incentives to use low-flow fixtures, discounts on

the labor and parts, or a tax credit.

Or, save water another way, by mandating that all new building will not be allowed underground

irrigation.

Sherri Schaefer, Realtor

I oppose inefficient point-of-sale government mandates such as retrofit at resale

• I support responsible market based conservation measures such as conservation pricing and




~ 16 ~



reservoirs.

W Richard Merritt, Realtor

Georgia has plenty of water in Lake Lanier and it was built specifically to give Atlanta more

water.

This is a state's right issue and our governor should tell the Feds that we will govern our own

water problems. We don't need their help.

Paul Christen, Alpharetta

Based conservation measures such as conservation pricing and retrofit incentives such as rebates.

I supports a riparian water rights system and the water rights of property owners I oppose the

public trust doctrine. I support efforts to increase water supply levels by expediting the

permitting and construction of new water supply reservoirs and increasing the capacity of

existing reservoirs.

Doreen Evans, Realtor

As a Georgia Realtor, I oppose mandating that property owners be required to retrofit low

plumbing fixtures at resale. The current economic climate and it's impact on the housing industry

places an extra burden on homeowners trying to sell in a bad market. With many homeowners

being forced to sell their properties below market value, this would place our sellers under unfair

financial stress. I support water conservation. However, we must come up with other alternatives

that place less financial burden on property owners.

Cynthia Cromartie, Registered Appraiser, Peachtree City

I am in full agreement with the following points:








reservoirs.

Mike Robinson, Realtor, Peachtree City

I am OPPOSED to any mandatory government requirement regarding upgrading of water fixtures

in homes prior to their sale. I OPPOSE restrictions on property right of Georgia Homeowners.

Carol Link, Realtor

I have thought about this and know how very necessary water is to our very lives. It would seem

water costs will continue to rise. Non low flow fixtures will, in the future, cost the home owner

more that it would if they change now, using tax credits. And, we would save our precious water.

I do think we need to have a way for the cost to be adjusted at the closing table, if there is going

to be cash to the seller, so they won't have to pay up front. If no cash to the seller then we have a

~ 17 ~

hardship situation and adjustments need to be available for that. It would be something that

needs to be addressed with information obtained from net to seller upon receipt of a contract.

I think the safest way to protect everyone getting paid would be to allow it to survive the closing

and escrow funds at the closing to be paid to the vendor of choice. The closing attorney then

releases the money only after a before and after picture, along with the receipt are presented.

Susan West, Realtor

Water Task Force:

As a Realtor here in the Metro Atlanta area, I in very involved in supporting the rights of private

property ownership. I want what is best for not only my Clients , but as well, the environment.

I DO OPPOSE inefficient point‐of‐sale government mandates such as retrofit at resale! This will

hinder the sale of houses!

I DO SUPPORT responsible market based conservation measures such as conservation pricing

and retrofit incentives such as rebates. Offering the consumers rebates to get their house up to

standards is a more efficient and cost effective way to promote water conservation.

I, as a Realtor oppose the public trust doctrine and I support a Riparian water right system and the

water rights of property owners. I also support efforts to increase water supply levels by

expediting the permitting and construction of new water supply reservoirs and increasing the

capacity of existing reservoirs.

I hope this information will be reviewed in the decision by Governor Sonny Perdue.

Joe Maltese

I wanted to share some developing information about what might be a significant existing water

resource that is being overlooked in the ACF basin.

As you are aware, GA Power operates 3 good sized lakes in the middle Chattahoochee region.

Here-to- for many had been working under the premise that these lakes carried a “run of the

river” designation. While GA Power may have been able to convince FERC and others that this

is how these lake should be operated, their capabilities are far different. There is significant

storage in these 3 significant lakes (Bartlett‟s Ferry/Lake Harding, Lake Oliver, and Goat Rock).

While GA Power owns the complexes that form these lakes, as you know the waters in them is

Federal water or ”water of the United States”. We recently conducted an assessment of what

these lakes could do to ease stress either to the north for water supply, or downstream for flow

augmentation to reduce stress on West Point and Lanier. What we found was quite surprising.

Our engineers revealed that Lake Harding alone held 60,000 acre feet of water (equivalent to

almost 3 feet of water in West Point or about 2 feet in Lanier) that could be put in play and

utilized to satisfy needs in the basin upstream for water supply- or downstream for flow

augmentation. Our engineers think that hydro operations could continue even while utilizing this

storage, but we agree some degree of hydro generation reliability would be the impact.

But we live in a time when ALL trade offs must be explored. As we explore the transfer of water

from many existing lakes around the state, logic would dictate that we explore the use of these

lakes of the GA Power Mid Chatt complex with some intensity. It would also seem logical that

water withdrawal from these GA Power lakes would be far more easy than withdrawing from

~ 18 ~

Corps lakes. In fact I think I am correct that Opelika and Valley AL already make use of these

lakes for water supply with rather substantial withdrawals.

I think this points to the fact that we should explore all existing impoundments- including all the

FERC regulated lakes of the Chattahoochee and the Flint and not focus too closely on existing

Corps lakes that are already the center of so much attention on the legal front.

With regards to this concept- timing is everything. Coincidently Bartlett‟s Ferry /Lake Harding

is just getting started in its relicensing process with FERC and this is the proper time for this

dialogue with regards to that project.

Joyce Small, Realtor

I am adamantly against government adding one more expense to home owners. I know that these

toilets take twice the water to do the same job as the present ones. Because of the minuscule

amount of water in them it takes two or three flushes to do the job properly, so how pray tell are

you saving anything. You are just placing homeowners with another needless and costly burden.

Bill Brannen, Associate Broker

Please support our realtors concerns in this matter.

Thank you

Jenny Hoffner, American Rivers

On behalf of American Rivers, thank you for the opportunity to provide the Task Force with our

recommendations and input to help further inform your work as you develop a proposal to

address the potential gap in supply that would exist should Judge Magnuson‟s ruling go into

effect in July 2012.

We provide these recommendations in addition to the Georgia Water Coalition comments

submitted on November 6, 2009 which we fully support and helped to formulate. These

recommendations serve to elaborate and highlight particular points and complement the specific

policy recommendations included in the Georgia Water Coalition document.

Attached you will find American Rivers' recommendations, the Georgia Water Coalition

recommendations as well as American Rivers' Hidden Reservoir report.

Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have questions. We look forward to continuing our

dialogue as the Task Force develops its proposal.

John Farra, Johns Creek

Flying to Chicago and Minneapolis on two recent trips brought to my mind some geographical

considerations for dealing with North Georgia‟s water crisis on a long term basis. Stating the

obvious, the Chattahoochee is a mere creek (at least up stream from the Alabama border)

compared to many rivers in the eastern U.S. Yet there are two major rivers within 50 to 100

miles of the Chattahoochee watershed that could (and should) be accessible to balance and reflect

the water needs of the entire region in these modern times – one is the Tennessee River and the

other is the Savannah River.

The Tennessee is especially capable of serving this purpose. Except for the Ohio, the Tennessee

is the largest river basin in the eastern U.S. Down stream from Chattanooga the only population

~ 19 ~

centers the river serves in Alabama are Huntsville, Decatur and Florence and there are NO

population centers in Tennessee or Kentucky that are served.

Below Chattanooga, I believe it is a certainty that the volume of water flow on the Tennessee far

exceeds the drinking water, power generation and navigation requirements at present and beyond

the foreseeable future.

After crossing into Alabama, the river flows 60 miles southwest to Guntersville before going due

west and back north through Tennessee and Kentucky. This proximity allows for the

construction of a pipeline of approximately 100 miles that could end in the Chattahoochee above

West Point Lake. The pipeline would also cross two river basins – Coosa and Tallapoosa - that

are contentious problems with Alabama. So this pipeline could supplement water flow in the

three river basins that are the reason for the water wars between Georgia, Alabama and Florida.

Such a pipeline solution should then allow Georgia to solve its own water problems by building

new lakes and reservoirs, reducing withdrawals from Lanier and Allatoona and give reasonable

time for water conservation measures to be effective in the long term.

Some related thoughts.

• Isn‟t Los Angeles‟ main water source a large and longer pipeline from Lake Meade (fed by

the Colorado river) in Nevada.

• Since congressional earmarks/pork will never go away, couldn‟t our Georgia and Alabama

congressman get some major funds to help pay the cost of a pipeline.

• A 40 to 50 mile pipeline from Lake Hartwell can reach Lake Lanier.

• How does the cost of land acquisition and lake construction compare to the cost of running

a pipeline?

Thanks for your consideration,

Ronnie Burrell, Realtor

While I support changes, I do not support moves that will hurt home sales, such as, point of sale

retrofit and public trust doctrine.

Christine Topham, Realtor

As an active Realtor in my community, I fully agree with GARS position on the Water Task

Force opposition to any change in water policy that would negatively impact private property

rights, as well as our opposition to point of sale mandates such as retrofit at resale.

• GAR opposes inefficient point‐of‐sale government mandates such as retrofit at resale







reservoirs.

~ 20 ~

Terry Moore, Realtor, Woodstock

I would like you to seriously consider any change in water policy that would negatively impact

private property rights as well as point of sale mandates such as retrofit at resale. It was made

clear I am a REALTORS and we are pro-conservation and that we fully support common sense

market based conservation measures such as incentives and rebates that do not interfere with

property rights or free enterprise.

GAR opposes inefficient point-of-sale government mandates such as retrofit at resale.

GAR supports responsible market based conservation measures such as conservation pricing and


GAR supports a riparian water rights system and the water rights of property owners.

GAR opposes the public trust doctrine.

GAR supports efforts to increase water supply levels by expediting the permitting and

construction of new water supply reservoirs and increasing the capacity of existing reservoirs.

Please consider carefully any change that will negatively affect our property rights.

Jim Waddell, Realtor

Please do not force sellers to retrofit plumbing to low flow toilets prior to resale. It does not

work to save water.

People have to flush twice and actually use more water, not less.

This unfunded requirement will further hurt the housing market.

Alec Poitevint, Former Federal Commissioner – ACF & ACT Water Compacts – Member

Ga Water Task Force

Ground Water via wells remain the best option with the shortest time for development – also

“returned” treated water from more wells should be able to used for credits for increased surface

water withdrawals.

Thus “win –win”

Dick Morrow, Mayor, City of Griffin

Water Task Force.

I applaud the creative work accomplished to arrive at the many possible solutions to the North

Metro (Lake Lanier) water crisis. What truly perplexes me, tho, is why we in the surrounding

counties were never queried as to our water availability and interest in supplying the Atlanta

market.

To our consternation, the plan calls for potential deep wells to be drilled in Spalding County but

does not even consider our present water surplus. This is a plan to spend mega millions on 6

MGD and ignores our present excess capacity.

FYI the City of Griffin owns TWO reservoirs - both operational. One, Heads Creek Reservoir, is

old and has diminished capacity. Two, Still Branch Reservoir, is new and state of the art. In

total we have a present withdrawal permit for 26.2 MGD. Today our total usage is only 8.2

~ 21 ~

MGD in winter and 12 MGD in summer. We have excess water of at least 13 MGD all year

around.

We want to sell that water. In fact, we NEED to sell more water to pay our bond indebtedness for

the new reservoir and water plant. Why not let us supply the N. Metro market with existing

reservoir and plant capacity? Why spend money on new capacity when it already exists?

In addition, with some new capital investment, our old Heads Creek Reservoir could be

rehabilitated and have the capability of greater storage and additional supply.

I believe the Task Force has overlooked one key solution. Take down the political wall around

the Atlanta area market and let those of us outside supply the need. The systems should be

interconnected and let those with excess freely sell to those with inadequate supply. This is

essentially a free market solution with water being sold and traded across political boundaries and

political agendas.

We need to sell water and N. Metro needs to buy water. Let's open up the process.

BTW, why would we want to allow you to drill into and take our groundwater when we have

water currently available?

Incidentally, Coweta County also has excess water and would be interested in the same system as

Griffin. Please don't ignore the potential providers outside the Metro area.

Brad Currey

I have responded to the survey. There is one important issue not addressed. All of our work thus

far is based on data of questionable accuracy and value.

The State needs to mandate collection, reporting, and compilation of data from every water utility

using AWWA standards. Every use needs to be metered down to each fire hydrant. We must

keep score. Only then can we determine true water loss and begin to control and eliminate loss

from leaks and other issues.

The projection of future water needs also needs a careful look. An independent resource needs to

look at the data on future needs for reasonableness and consistency. Only then can we be sure

that we are preparing for the future and not wasting capital in implementing all of these

expensive, time consuming measures included in the survey.

Finally, our report needs to focus on the critical matter that all of us all over the state will pay

more for less water, a scarce resource, in the years to come. The infrastructure needs of our

utilities do not go down when people use less water, but utility revenues do go down. The public

and government agencies need to be prepared for reality!

~ 22 ~

Steve Williams, BUILDINGGREENER LLC


After reading the last news release form the Governors Water Task Force, I thought I would see

if I could convince the task force at least to consider rainwater harvesting if not recommending it.

As most of you do not realize rainwater harvesting systems (RHS) could quickly and relatively

inexpensively help reduce our dependency on the Chattahoochee and help with stormwater

problems. With incentives and education non-potable water usage could be drastically reduced.

By promoting it to commercial users the quick ROI for many applications could be realizes.

Please consider commenting before the State decides on one of the more expensive and/or

environmentally damaging options.

Below is my brief critique of your solutions. I would be more then happy to address them in

person.

Solution: Build more reservoirs or expand current reservoirs.

Result: Very expensive, takes years of permitting, lots of money, as well as an inefficient way to

store water due to seepage and evaporation. Then there are the environmental issues of destroying

our natural ecosystem.

Solution: Desalinization plants on the coast and pump the water to Atlanta.

Result: The cost of desalination plant and the amount of energy to produce water is quite

expensive. Costs for plants run from $100 million to over $ 1 billion depending on size. The

environmental impact can be intensive, because of the brine disposal. Finally, the cost to pump

millions of gallons 1000 vertical feet plus 250 miles. Wow. The California Energy Commission

conducted a study in 2007 that found that water-related energy use consumes about 19 percent of

the state‟s electricity.

Solution: Piping water from the Savannah River.

Result: Apparently there is a down hill root from the Savannah River to Atlanta, but that will

take a decade or two to plan, then build and then we will be at war with another state.

Solution: Conservation

Result: Great idea. Everyone supports it, but will the legislators and the governor provide the

incentives, education and promotion needed? I doubt it. The North Metro GA Update water plan

only set moderate efficiency goals.

Solution: Rainwater Harvesting

Result: This is an efficient and relatively inexpensive way to collect water, especially for non-

potable water. Such as for irrigation and commercial applications. The water collected is very

clean and free of minerals. Once the water is stored there is virtually no loss from the storage

container. And the water can be stored for months. The amount of energy saved do to the close

proximity of the water source to its need should be significant. Rainwater Harvesting is also a

good way to help with stormwater management.

~ 23 ~

With almost 50 inches of rain a year in the Metro Atlanta area a modest 2500 square foot 1 story

house can realistically capture about the 70,000 gallons of water per year. This could provide all

the water needs for 2 people for a year. Why are we letting it go down the drain?

Solution: Green Infrastructure

Result: Green infrastructure is a passive and natural way to harvest water. The water is allowed

to percolate into the ground replenishing the ground water which keeps the surface water level

higher. This means more water for everyone. By mimicking and restoring the natural water

cycle grey (concrete) infrastructure costs are reduced. Installation and maintenance tends to be

significantly less the traditional grey infrastructure.

Diane Johnson

I would like to make a recommendation for our water issue. Please consider utilizing Rainwater

Harvesting Catchments Systems to be used for non-potable water...washing clothes, flushing

toilets, and irrigation. Eventually, there will be enough clarifying that we will be able to utilize

rainwater for drinking water too. (It's being used in other places now.)

By using Rainwater catchment systems, we would save on overall water usage (draw from

reservoirs)as well a mitigate stormwater runoff (flooding). THIS IS a viable solution in

conjunction to other solutions of GOING GREEN. Please consider this option. I am a Rainwater

Catchment Systems Professional and belong to an upstart organization (ARCSA)

The national group is out of Austin, TX. Please look it up!!! I am also active in the SE-ARCSA

group...this group is reforming and is looking forward to develop NEW JOBS in GA. This is one

avenue for that goal.

The SEARCSA has been instrumental in working with UGA in developing new plumbing codes

for rainwater usage.

Please consider this as a highly VIABLE option. You WILL be convinced of the merits of

rainwater usage once you speak with the leaders in this industry.

As a landscape architect and home owner, I know the problems with stormwater runoff and

flooding. I know what causes it and I know the methods to mitigate it. Claiming rainwater is a

good co-solution.

As a citizen of GA, I am very worried about our drinking water problems (and general

congestion). I feel certain there will be no further development in Atlanta if we have no water to

drink!!! People will be moving out of the areas where water is a problem. I've considered

moving based on lack of work, traffic congestion...and now the lack of water.

We should be building all things 'green' and utilizing FREE water and putting people to work in a

new 'green' industry is a very good and feasible solution.

I hope that you will consider this option seriously.

~ 24 ~

Candace Balega

To whom this concerns:

My husband and I own a 37,000 square foot shopping center. That gives us a tremendous area to

capture rain water in large volumes ,which we do. We have our roof water drained to cisterns

that pump it through our drip irrigation system. We choose this over city water that would be

very costly in many ways. The other option of drilling a well is also costly in our west GA

location and would use additional electricity. We also took up 1/3 of the asphalt and planted

trees when we purchased the property to help eliminate runoff. If there were incentives for

owners to add small economically sustainable features like this maybe more people would invest

the money to help make a difference.

Vince Zappiam , member GWC, Suwanee,

Please use conservation to heavily weigh decisions on how best to provide water for the future of

Georgia.

Furthermore, please consider wisely the data provided by groups such as the GWC to base such

decisions.

The economic and environmental burden of engineered solutions will further hinder generations

of Georgians with problems created today. Such solutions are likely to be just another band‐aid

approach to a situation that requires extensive conservation. And, after all, there is a finite

number of rivers and streams to dam‐up and aquifers to plunder.

Mark Brown, Rain Catchers

I am writing to offer a solid solution to the impending water crisis in GA. I am writing as a

concerned citizen and an expert in the field of rainwater harvesting. Several years ago I chose

Rainwater Harvesting as a new career path. As an already successful entrepreneur in another

industry I made this choice, because it was obvious to me that water was fast becoming a major

issue in our state as well as around the world. In my endeavor to become an expert, I sought out

the authorities in the field, and spent much time researching and learning from these experts. I

also looked for knowledge from leading authorities on water from around the world, and through

this journey I found that there are a few points on which all are in agreement. Water is a finite

resource and the rate of demand on this finite resource is growing quicker than the rate of

population growth itself. We know this all too well in GA.

The question that perplexes all who understand rainwater harvesting is, “why is our state not

seriously considering this as a viable solution?” What other single solution can provide a clean

source of water, save energy, and greatly reduce stormwater runoff and the resulting pollution

simultaneously? Throughout my business career I have always found that numbers speak louder

than words, so I will offer up a simple example of an existing system we have designed and

installed here in Atlanta:

Ex. Home with 1500 square ft of roof space that is currently using rainwater for non‐potable

water uses inside of home and outside for irrigation.

1500 sq ft x . 62 gallons per inch of rainfall x . 95 collection efficiency = 883 gallons per 1 inch

of rainfall

~ 25 ~

883 gallons x 52” avg annual rainfall = 45,916 gallons collected per year

3 person family has average water use of 60,225 gallons/yr without water saving fixtures (leaks

are not considered in this #)

36,135 gallons of this represents non‐potable use

Potential Rainfall Supply = 45,916 gals/yr

Non‐Potable Demand = 36,135 gals/yr Total Demand = 60,225 gals/yr

Potential Energy Savings = 65 KWh/yr

Potential Stormwater Runoff Reduction = 45,916 gals/yr

It is a simple equation. Rainwater supplied is greater than non‐potable demand. The numbers are

even more compelling when considering commercial, industrial, and institutional applications

where more water can be collected and more water is typically used.

Ex. Industrial plant with 200,000 square ft of roof space that will be using rainwater for cooling

towers

200,000 sq ft x . 62 gallons per inch of rainfall x . 95 collection efficiency = 117,800 gallons per

1 inch of rainfall

117,800 gallons x 52” avg annual rainfall = 6,125,600 gallons collected per year

3 cooling towers use total of 15,000 gallons per day or 5,460,000 gallons per year

Potential Supply = 6,125,600 gals/yr

Demand = 5,460,000 gals/yr

Potential Energy Savings = 9188 KWh/yr

Potential Stormwater Runoff Reduction = 6,125,600 gals/yr

Obviously cost is an important factor in determining viable solutions for the impending water

crisis. The solutions offered up thus far are quite expensive just as rainwater harvesting is

expensive, however rainwater harvesting offers the end user a return on investment rather than

continuing price increases down the road. The typical industrial or institutional application will

receive a payback of 1 to 5 years on a rainwater harvesting system. Residential systems where

water is used inside the home typically produce a payback of 5‐10 years and when amortized

over 30 years are normally cash flow positive or at minimum break even as compared to savings

on a monthly water bill in Atlanta. As water prices continue to increase, the time it takes to pay

for the systems will continue to shorten.

Because rainwater harvesting is relatively new to GA I would like to take a moment to dispel a

few myths:

1. Rainwater harvesting systems are nothing more than rain barrels connected to downspouts.

Most people picture a rain barrel when rainwater harvesting is mentioned. While rain

barrels are commonly used by gardeners for hand watering plants, rainwater harvesting

systems can be used for much more including non‐potable water uses such as flushing

toilets, laundry, irrigation, building and vehicle washing, fire suppression, and many other

things. They are also used for a potable water source where municipal or well water is not

a viable option.

2. Rainwater harvesting systems are a new invention in response to the recent droughts the US

has been experiencing. It has been around for 1000‟s of years. Technology has advanced

over the years and many of today‟s systems are much more complex.

~ 26 ~

3. Rainwater harvesting systems are only good when there is plentiful rain, not in times of

drought. Drought is a shortage not an absence of rainfall. Also, rainfall can be collected

during rainy seasons and stored for use in drier seasons when demand is typically higher.

4. Rainwater contains many contaminants that are harmful to humans and animals. Rainwater

harvesting systems will produce very healthy water if properly designed. German scientists

figured this out many years ago, as Germany has been using rainwater harvesting for over

30 years, and it is required on all new construction.

5. Rainwater harvesting tanks need to be emptied and disinfected every year to keep the water

healthy. This is not required in a properly designed rainwater harvesting system. If proper

filtration and other important steps are used, the tanks will never require cleaning.

6. Rainwater is another word for greywater. These are two very different things. Rainwater

falls from the sky. Greywater is water that has been collected from sinks and washing

machines. Collection, treatment, storage, and regulation are very different between

greywater and rainwater.

Rainwater Harvesting is now being utilized in many countries around the world and is required to

be installed during new construction in places like Germany, Australia, South Africa, Paris,

United Kingdom, and recently Tuscon, AZ. Some of these places have similar rainfall to GA,

and some of them receive much less rainfall than we do, but all of these places have one thing in

common. Water supply is a problem for one reason or another in each of these places, just as it is

here in GA.

Many states including GA have adopted a rainwater harvesting code in anticipation of this

solution becoming more popular. Rainwater Harvesting systems have already been installed in

government buildings, schools, universities, fire stations, non‐profit organizations, industrial

plants, office buildings, and homes all across the United States.

I believe the time has come for GA to officially adopt Rainwater Harvesting as a solution to its

impending water crisis. Listed below is a basic outline of how this can be done:

1. Tax Incentives and rebates for retrofitting of existing homes and businesses with Rainwater

Harvesting Systems

2. Mandate for installation of Rainwater Harvesting Systems on all new construction projects

over 400 sq. ft.

3. Statewide education program for general public, governmental agencies, and private sector

business

4. Retrofitting of qualifying governmental facilities with Rainwater Harvesting Systems

I have heard many options being tossed around as solutions to the water crisis. While recently

attending the GA Environmental Conference I continually heard terms like desalination, aquifer

recharge, and pipeline (from wherever).

The common thread with the solutions being discussed is that they are all very expensive and

most importantly they all have an expiration date. They are all temporary solutions to get us

through another 5 to 50 years based on population growth charts. Rainwater Harvesting is a

permanent solution that decentralizes the water supply and places personal responsibility on our

population to use this finite resource wisely. Along with water conservation it can and should

play an important role in solving our impending water crisis.

~ 27 ~

Joe Clark, RainbankUSA

GA Water Task Force,

Please find attached a letter in support of Rainwater Catchment Systems (Rain Harvesting), and

supporting reasons. Please add Rain Harvesting to the list of options for GA, and especially the

Atlanta Metro area.

Frank Carl, Savannah Riverkeeper, Inc

Re: November 23, 2009 Report from the Task Force

Given the Governor‟s assigned timeline for the task force we can understand the accelerated

schedule for providing information. Unfortunately, that accelerated schedule will inevitably lead

to errors in the final product. We wish to take this opportunity to provide some input to minimize

the errors and political fallout that are bound to happen with such an accelerated schedule.

Maybe it should be impressed upon the Governor as the old saying goes that “failure to plan on

your part does not constitute an emergency on my part. ”

At any rate we recognize that the Governor is simply providing himself with some alternatives

that he should have provided himself much earlier instead of relying totally on winning the legal

option. Unfortunately, taking a negotiated option off the table as a potential solution to the

problem is a mistake. It would be very informative if we could compare the supply volumes and

costs of a negotiated use of Lanier to the other options being considered. At this point we can

only assume that the negotiated option would provide more water more cheaply than any other

option except conservation. But of course that option cannot be evaluated in the current context

because the Governor has taken it off the table.

It is also obvious that the task force has been tasked to consider only the economic drivers

involved and to ignore the need for water for the health and welfare of the people of Georgia.

Indeed, that priority has been prominent in the water planning process from the beginning back in

2005 when the mission statement put the economy ahead of the health and welfare of the people

of Georgia. The mission statement for the Water Council states, "Georgia manages water

resources in a sustainable manner to support the state‟s economy, to protect public health and

natural systems, and to enhance the quality of life for all citizens. " We need to get our priorities

straight, starting now. We should use water to support the economy, but let‟s make sure that it is

not at the expense of the people.

Maybe it is time to stop feeding the ravenous growth machine of the metro area, the growth that

keeps developers happy but saddles the people of the metro area with sprawl, transportation

issues, bad air, higher taxes, and a myriad of land use and water quality problems. Maybe it is

time to allow the development in the metro area to run up against its natural constraints, a finite

water supply and a 90 minute commute. Maybe it‟s time to allow development to follow the

resources instead of commandeering the resources of others to allow us to continue to play the

same old game, growing metro Atlanta.

The Task Force has made its conference with the Georgia Water Coalition a prominent part of its

November 23 report, leaving the impression that the input of conservation groups had been

included in the report.

~ 28 ~

Unfortunately, the report did not use the information provided by the Georgia Water Coalition in

its report and the inclusion of the GWC in the Task Force report seems to be just window

dressing. In fact, the GWC has calculated that the water saved by earnest conservation efforts in

the metro district (and some already exist) would be much greater than the 35 MGD used in the

Task Force report. Indeed, the GWC indicates that a combination of conservation and good faith

negotiation with Alabama and Florida could easily produce enough water for current needs in the

metro district. The inflated predictions of future needs used by the Task Force should be brought

into perspective by the constraints mentioned in the previous paragraph. The growth industry

needs to branch out and follow the resources. The current study should be used not only to find

other sources of water but to understand the limits of growth in the metro area. The information

the Task Force is generating can help us do that.

With the possible exception of West Point Lake the control options mentioned (Lake Burton,

Lake Hartwell and the Tennessee River) would essentially be stealing someone else‟s water. And

taking water from West Point Lake would re-open the same can of worms that the Task Force is

trying to close. It would involve negotiations with Alabama and Florida.

Taking water from Lake Burton would likely involve negotiations with the Savannah/Upper

Ogeechee Water Planning Council and they just passed (unanimously) a resolution to ban

interbasin transfers. While the infrastructure for transferring the water may be relatively cheap,

in this case the water itself may end up being politically expensive. In addition, it appears that

currently a transfer from Lake Burton to the Chattahoochee would be illegal. Taking water from

Lake Hartwell and transferring it into the North Georgia Metro District would also be illegal

within Georgia, but more importantly might be challenged by South Carolina and by Georgia

cities downstream (Augusta and Savannah).

Taking water from the Tennessee River is fraught with a myriad of problems, least of which is

the expense. First, we do not think that it will matter much if the state line is successfully

challenged to gain access to the river. Tennessee River water is highly allocated to a variety of

uses downstream and downstream includes AL, TN, KY, IL, MO, AR, MS, and LA. Now, that is

a lawsuit. While it may be possible to physically control water from the four sources under the

control option, it may be much more difficult to legally control that water. We advise you to

consider these comments when prioritizing the control options for the Governor. In fact, our

advice would be to forget the control options. They are not really options.

We know that the Governor is partial to building reservoirs to capture water that is available in

times of excess rainfall to be used in times of drought. While this mechanism can provide water

to a water-starved city, there are major disadvantages to building reservoirs. First, the cheapest

mechanism for building a reservoir is to dam a stream. Creating a reservoir where a stream once

flowed completely changes not only the aquatic ecosystem but also the terrestrial ecosystem

surrounding the new reservoir. Re-equilibration of an ecosystem takes generations, maybe

centuries. These changes to nature should not be taken lightly. Second, there will be

considerable pressure from the growth industry to use these newly built reservoirs as real estate

amenities. I urge you to resist that pressure for two reasons. (1) Development on the shores of

these new reservoirs will cause water quality problems that will have to be treated before the

water can be used as a drinking water source. That treatment can become expensive. Indeed,

New York City calculated that it would be cheaper for them to buy the watershed in the Catskills

that supplies their drinking water than it was to treat the drinking water if they allowed

~ 29 ~

development on the shores of their reservoir. (2) Making the land around the reservoir available

for real estate development will eventually lead to pressure to manage the water resource as a real

estate resource. I you will be acquiring land to use for a reservoir for water supply, it would be

disingenuous to allow the growth industry to drive up the cost of the water supply while profiting

from development of land that was acquired for other reasons. And finally, if reservoirs are to be

built, we recommend dedicated off-stream reservoirs where water is pumped into the reservoir

during periods of excess and the reservoir does not interrupt the flow of an existing stream.

We wish you luck in providing a priority list for the Governor. We look forward to seeing that

list. And we appreciate the opportunity to comment on your November 23 report.

Somchay Chong

As a concern citizen of Georgia, our water problem had been a big issue. Per the governor

suggestion, I would like for you to consider an idea I was thinking of. Is it possible for us to just

make rain water collectors and just pour it down stream during drought season. This way we are

saving most of the rain water. We won't need to treat it at all but just pour it down stream when

Alabama and Florida need some water. Thank you for considering my idea, I hope we can figure

this out before the next drought.

Steve Williams BUILDINGGREENER LLC

I sent a message to you a few days ago to share some thoughts on other solutions not mentioned

in the news as considerations for GA. Please take the time to down load and review my

presentation: Finding Water Through Rain. This presentation has been given to a international, a

state and a local conference in the past year. It not only talks about the environmental impacts of

our current water management practices, but touches on the large amounts of water we lose every

time it rains. The statics are accurate on water and the cost overruns on big infrastructure

projects are usually the norm rather then the occasional outcome. Let's try a new approach and

keep think simple. I would love to share this in person, but time is running out.

Russ Jackson, Rain Harvest Systems

Since the release of the Water Contingency Planning Task Force Report there has been much

discussion by the Georgia rainwater harvesting community about the absence of rainwater

harvesting (RWH) as part of the viable solution to our water crisis. I would like to offer my

expertise on the topic to help educate the Task Force on the costs and savings potential rwh can

provide. I have been involved with the industry since 2001. My company, RainHarvest Systems

is the largest supplier of rainwater harvesting equipment in the world, and we are based here in

the Metro Atlanta Area.

Because of our position as a company I can offer a truly global perspective on our problem and

help us reach a solution.

Please let me know if you can afford me the opportunity to help educate the Task Force.

Randy Kauk Rain Harvest Systems

My name is Randy Kauk. I am the President and principal owner of RainHarvest Systems, a

Georgia‐based North American distributor of rainwater collection systems based in Cumming,

GA. We operate a 10,000 square foot warehouse with rain harvesting lab, retail showroom and

e‐commerce site devoted solely to the distribution and promotion of rainwater collection systems

~ 30 ~

in the US, Canada, Mexico, the Caribbean and Bahamas. We are the largest distributor of

rainwater collection systems in the US.

It was recently brought to my attention that the Water Contingency Planning Task Force is

working on a final report to the Governor with regard to the impending water shortage and

litigation issues surrounding Lake Lanier and associated basins.

I would like to make myself and my company available in any way possible to help promote

rainwater collection as a potential solution to the water shortage problems we‟re encountering.

Georgia‟s water issues present a great opportunity for us to economically resolve our own issues,

reduce our dependence on water from the Chattahoochee basin and take a leading role in the

rapidly growing rainwater collection industry. As a property owner on Lake Lanier, individual

member of the 1071 coalition, corporate member of the DNR‟s Partnership for a Sustainable

Georgia and founding members of the Southeast Rainwater Collection Systems Association, I

believe my company and I can make a valuable contribution to your efforts.

If there is anything we can do to assist the state of Georgia in solving our water shortage, please

don‟t hesitate to contact me or anyone in my company.

Chatham Environmental Forum

The following comments are a reflection of the Chatham Environmental Forum‟s immediate

thoughts on the water resource management problems of North Georgia currently being studied

by the Governor‟s Water Task Force. The full forum will take positions on these issues after the

results of that task force are made public. Please pass them along to the Task Force!

Opposed to:

Inter‐basin transfer of surface water, unless there is an opposite and equal amount of fully treated

effluent returned to the basin from which the withdrawal originated.

Any form of aquifer storage and recovery (ASR) in the upper or lower Floridan aquifer.

Desalinization of any kind, unless and until all environmental impacts are fully studied,

scientifically understood, and avoided or fully mitigated.

In favor of: Water resource conservation, including:

• Residential

• Industrial

• Municipal

Note: water conservation measures implemented in Chatham County since 1995 should be

carefully studied and used as a model. The 2005 Chatham County Comprehensive Water Supply

Management Plan which contains twenty‐eight strategies that were implemented to achieve a

reduction in domestic and commercial water usage from 169 gallons per capita per day in 1995 to

135 gallons per day per capita in 2005. A significant finding is that from the measures

implemented the County saw a 13.6 percent rise in population between 1990 and 2005 and an

overall 6 percent reduction in domestic and commercial water usage over the same period.

~ 31 ~

Maximum water reuse, through effective and environmentally sound treatment, and return of

water used to its original source.

Maximum efficient water use for all energy and industrial purposes.

Economic analysis of any proposed alternative to the water management issues of North Georgia

must not be limited to consideration of only engineering, construction, and operational costs.

These analyses should also include and account fully for all costs to the impacted areas

downstream, including: (a) limitations in supply and potential increases in costs to existing and

future water users, (b) loss of economic opportunity, (b) diminishment of property values, (c)

potential loss of tax revenues for local governments, (d) costs of quantifiable short and long‐term

environmental impacts, (e) identification and inventory of other environmental impacts that may

not be easily quantifiable, such as aesthetic loss or negative effect on quality of life.

Regardless of what solutions are adopted, it is imperative that the full economic and

environmental costs be borne by the effected water consumers only, and not spread out to the

entire State of Georgia, or amortized so that consumers do not fully experience the real costs, and

have the fullest opportunity to enjoy the economic benefits of conservation.

John Bennett

I am assuming that the more aggressive Conservation measures would only apply to the metro

area and other parts of the State as necessary and would not be Statewide. Am I correct?

Bob Drew, Founder, EcoVie Environmental

Hello Task Force,

I commend you efforts and rigorous analysis through BCG. The problem is obviously complex

and breaking it down into a more objective set of problems can only help. I would like to offer

some solution alternatives which you may or may not be strongly considering, but which I

believe can have a true impact on metro Atlanta's water challenges regardless of the Lake Lanier

outcome.

You seem to be going down the path of building new reservoirs. While some of this may prove

necessary, I would advocate more small reservoir building in the form of rainwater collection

systems. For residences, this alternate water supply should range from about 3,000 to 10,000

gallons to replace all outdoor watering and to be considered for indoor use. For commercial

applications, the cistern size may be much larger.

Such systems are already proven to reduce residential use by well over 50% over and above any

conservation steps and in many cases can eliminate all municipal water use. Very different from

tiny 50 gallon rain barrels, rainwater collection systems provide a real impact on municipal water

demand. Typical water savings range from 50,000 to 100,000 gallons per home. Multiplied

across a meaningful percentage of metro Atlanta homes, impact can easily be 10-30 million

gallons per day and conceivably more. Coupled with an effective conservation policy, the impact

can be even more. By my estimates, rainwater collection can eliminate the need for at least some

of the planned reservoirs and can be implemented much faster and with less state and city funds

(see below).

~ 32 ~

Implementation will require support of your task force as well as state municipal governments.

Here are a few ideas for implementation:

1. If you have not already, I recommend to benchmark and collaborate with municipalities in

Australia where the water challenge pre-dates that of Atlanta and where rainwater

collection has been an integral part of the water management plan.

2. Consider using federal loan money to finance rainwater collection systems. Funds are

available which could be directed to private home owners and businesses as capital for

rainwater collection. With rates being offered at around 2.2% the finance charge of a

system is lower than the monthly water bill savings, making it a cash flow positive

incentive for investors and avoids the cost to local governments of incentives such as tax

rebates (which would be a challenge with current state and local budget crunches.

3. One alternative could be to implement alternative water sources only for outdoor watering.

Coupled with the incentive above, a ban on using municipal water for irrigation could have

a huge and sustainable impact on metro Atlanta municipal water usage

4. Compared to permitting for reservoirs and environmental impact, rainwater collection for

homes and businesses is straightforward. However, state code could be more streamlined

and clear to allow only certified rainwater system installers to do installations and to

specify requirements for potable and non-potable applications. At the same time, it should

be made easier for certified installers to obtain permits.

One final comment: I concur that conservation efforts can only take us so far, although your

numbers on outdoor water use appear understated in the recent presentation I saw. Most

estimates show outdoor water use accounts for over half of residential consumption. Switching

exclusively to alternate water supplies for this purpose would have a much greater impact on

municipal water usage than the outdoor watering ban the last few years.

I am founder of an Atlanta local rainwater collection business (www.ecovieenvironmental.com)

and am a member of ARCSA (American Rainwater Collection Systems Association). I serve as

the EPA liaison for the organization.

I hope that you find at least some of these comments useful and I would like to be of service in

any way possible. Please feel free to contact me.

Tall Timbers Research Station & Land Conservancy

Tall Timbers Research Station & Land Conservancy has been closely following the work of the

Georgia Water Contingency Task Force. Tall Timbers‟ interest in the work of the Task Force

stems from our role as one of the largest regional land trusts in the southeastern United States.

Our mission is to conserve the ecological, scenic, and historical resources of the Red Hills region

of southwest Georgia and north Florida. The Red Hills is a unique rural landscape, home to 64

protected species of plants and animals. Tall Timbers also has significant conservation interests

in the Lower Flint River watershed. In these two special areas, we have worked closely with

conservation-minded private landowners to permanently protect more than 112,000 acres of

critical wildlife habitat as well as rivers, streams, springs, and one of the most productive

freshwater aquifer systems in the United States.

~ 33 ~

Tall Timbers appreciates the important work that the Georgia Water Contingency Task Force has

completed in such a short time frame. We encourage the Task Force to consider the following

suggestions as it develops recommendations for Governor Perdue.

First, establish as the highest priority, aggressive Metro Atlanta water conservation and efficiency

measures.

Georgia Water Coalition resource experts have identified the potential for significant water

savings at a price per gallon lower than other infrastructure-based options. Second, aggressively

pursue reauthorizing and reallocating water from Lake Lanier as one aspect of a long-term,

comprehensive water supply plan for Metro Atlanta. The reauthorization and reallocation must

recognize the critical ecosystem management role played by adequate downstream flows on the

Apalachicola-Chattahoochee-Flint system. Third, interbasin water transfers, reservoir

construction and expansion projects, and South Georgia groundwater transfer projects could all

have significant adverse impacts to Georgia‟s ecology, economy, and quality of life. These

costly options should not be considered until all conservation, efficiency, and reservoir

reallocation measures are implemented to the greatest extent practicable.

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this important issue.

Governor’s Agriculture Advisory Commission

The Water Contingency Task Force is to be commended for seeking solutions to insure all

Georgians have adequate water in the future. Their work sends a strong message to all Georgians

and to our neighbors that we are dedicated to water conservation. Members of the Governor‟s

Agriculture Advisory Commission support and are practicing aggressive conservation measures

and support expanding existing reservoirs and building new ones. However there has been some

concern with the mention of restrictions on outdoor water use. The green industry and urban

agriculture has just gone through one of the worst economic times with massive layoffs and

economic losses. According to a UGA study, the industry recently suffered a loss of 35,000 jobs

and over $3.15 billion in economic harm.

Some suggestions from the Governor‟s Ag Commission include:

• Building additional reservoirs

• Accommodate a minimum 30 day installation allowance for new landscapes

• Allowing retail garden centers, wholesale nurseries and landscape contractors to water their

plants

• Continue with outdoor water use certification program

• Maintain current exemptions for agriculture use

• Support conservation of water i.e. variable rate irrigation, sensors, micro-irrigation, drip

irrigation

• Creation of an outdoor water use committee

WATER CONTINGENCY PLANNING TASK FORCE

SUBMISSIONS RECEIVED

FROM

TASK FORCE MEMBERS

AND

OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES

October-December 2009

To access the interactive Index, click on the Bookmarks tab on the upper left

Harvesting rain is state’s most viable solutionBy Joe Clark, Steve Williams, and Russ Jackson

Atlanta’s water wars and water woes are at the forefront of many of our minds, as Federal Judge Paul Magnuson’s July 2012 deadline for an agreement for water withdrawal from Lake Lanier looms closer each day. Jay Bookman and the AJC editorial board have addressed some of the issues surrounding this controversial ruling (“Lopsided water task force isn’t up to the task”, Opinion Nov. 13) and have raised good questions regarding the GA Water Task Force and the controversial proposals the metro area faces as we seek answers to the water shortages we will undoubtedly face in the future.

According to Bookman’s article, Governor Perdue’s spokesman, Bert Brantley, said the task force is looking for, “the most readily available, and cost-effective available, options that you can bring online as fast as possible.” The AJC’s Dan Chapman has contributed an article, as well, detailing the results of polling data indicating the public’s widespread desire for additional conservation methods, and for increasing the pool in both Lake Lanier and Lake Allatoona (“Poll: Put water conservation first”, AJC Nov. 18).

The GA Water Contingency Task Force co-chairs, John Brock and Tom Lowe, have even given their viewpoint, too (“New statewide water task force is focusing on 3 fronts at once”, Nov.17), stressing that there are “three areas of focus – enhancing conservation efforts, increasing the state’s ability to capture rain and groundwater, and reviewing current control and management policies” and issuing a call for public input, saying “Any and all options under these three categories will be examined.”

Here is our suggestion to the GA Water Task Force, Governor Perdue, the state legislature, and all local municipalities, as well as the reasons why we believe it should be a large part of Georgia’s plan for mitigating water shortages in the future.

The Governor, EPD, and the New State Water Districts should work together to mandate theinstallation of, and provide economic incentives for, Rainwater Harvesting Systems (RHS) for new construction of both commercial and residential buildings, and provide economic incentives for existing commercial and residential users who install RHS at their existing homes for non-potable uses. Currently the Metropolitan North Georgia Water District only requires RHS as an educational option.

RHS should be promoted for the following reasons:

� RHS legislation that would mandate systems during new construction and provide incentives for homeowners to install RHS would create a new industry for Georgia, giving a boost to our economy, and creating employment opportunities for currently unemployed workers, while contributing to the tax base through additional sales and income taxes.

� RHS would mitigate the need for construction of new dams and evaporation-prone reservoirs, which would once again tend to place the Atlanta area’s needs above Georgia’s growing cities downstream, and save taxpayers billions of dollars in the process. This money could be distributed in the form of incentives for installing RHS. If we are going to

Page 1

go into debt through bond sales for water solutions, we should share the burdens, and the rewards, equally.

� RHS is nothing new in Europe and Australia, and the capture, filtering, storage, and delivery technologies have been evolving to “state-of-the-art” for the past twenty years. Systems are used to capture rain and groundwater, are mandated in drought-stricken Australia, and are used to mitigate flood damage in Germany.

� RHS are part of the USGBC (United States Green Building Council) LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design) Standards, and essential to sustainable development in the Atlanta metro area, and throughout the state. Projects desiring LEED certification can gain up to 14 points by installing RHS.

� RHS could be installed and operational in hundreds of homes and businesses in a matter of months, and tens of thousands of homes and businesses in just a few years, whereas simply negotiating the environmental and legal issues surrounding construction of new dams, reservoirs, desalination plants, etc. would take years, and that does not even include the actual construction time. In addition, reservoirs lose water to evaporation, and destroy eco-systems both upstream and downstream, while desalination plants waste water, use a large amount of energy, and produce a toxic sludge that creates an ecological hazard.

� RHS would save millions of gallons of potable water that we are currently flushing down our toilets. That’s right, we are currently flushing our toilets with drinking water. This wasteful practice would be mitigated by the installation of RHS for all new construction.

� RHS would allow irrigation for all landscaping installations (not just new) during drought conditions, and save millions of gallons of potable water in the process. Not to mention, RHS would provide economic benefits to many landscaping companies, that could risk failure as viable economic entities, should severe water restrictions be enacted in the future. All new construction with irrigation should be required to install RHS. Rainwater can also improve plant growth by as much as 30% over chlorinated municipal water.

� RHS for irrigation would help replenish the water table, rather than depleting it as well-water irrigation does. By capturing rainwater that would otherwise run-off downstream into the ocean (which benefits no one, not even Atlanta’s downstream neighbors, due to pollution and flooding issues), and slowly releasing it back into the ground through irrigation or wastewater treatment facilities, RHS provide a means for replenishing the water table and preserving streams and rivers. Capturing rainwater at the source would also negate the need for expensive, wasteful, desalination plants and excessive energy usage to return processed seawater to the Atlanta area.

For all these reasons, and more, we believe Rainwater Harvesting Systems should be an integral part of any regional or statewide water plan. The development community is slowly recognizing this one simple fact: due to the growing population of our state, and the Atlanta metro area in particular, sustainable development is the only course of action that will allow us all to thrive and prosper. We simply cannot continue to have the narrow-minded focus that many developers have had in the past. We need to understand the tremendous benefits, especially to the local community, but also to the entire state, of harvesting rainwater and using it to augment the municipal supply. During the drought of 2007-2008, we saw the disastrous effects of over-development without a focus on sustainability, and the tremendous strain it put on our water resources. Conversely, the non-porous surfaces of our cities caused excessive run-off during the heavy rains this fall, resulting in widespread flooding throughout the region. Proper rainwater management is the key to solving both issues, and RHS can be designed to meet these needs.

Page 2

Finally, we want to acknowledge that it would be wrong to pit developers against members of the sustainable development movement, or those who might be more ecologically minded, but who might mistakenly seek to shutdown growth in Atlanta. We are all in this together. The developers cannot continue developing if the cities and counties cannot issue building permits.The building permits cannot be issued unless there is the necessary infrastructure (in this case, water supply) to support the new development. As the sustainable development community and the ecologically aware understand, there simply is not enough water available, especially given the restrictions that will almost certainly be put on Lake Lanier in two and a half short years, to continue growing as we have in the past. However, according to the statistics, Georgia will continue to see an increase in population. We cannot wall off our state and tell newcomers they are unwelcome. Even if we could, our economy would go into free-fall. So, we all need to understand that we have the technology available to continue providing opportunities for growth in the region, and we all need to work together to get this message out through the grassroots level, until the political will exists to insist on sustainable development. We have already done too much damage to our streambeds, rivers, and other water resources to allow development to continue in an unsustainable way. It is time to insist that everyone commit to making the necessary changes to our development ideologies that will allow the economic engine of Georgia to continue to drive growth, but only the sustainable growth that will not rape our regions resources and leave a legacy of blight to our children and grandchildren.

With almost 50 inches of rain a year in the Metro Atlanta area a modest 2500 square foot 1 story house can realistically capture about 70,000 gallons of water per year. This could provide all the water needs for 2 people for a year. Why are we letting it go down the drain?

Joe Clark is the Business Development Director of RainbankUSA, and a member of the American Rainwater Catchment Systems Association of America (ARCSA). Visit www.rainbankusa.com or www.arcsa.org for more information.

Steve Williams, is The Rain Saver owner of Buildinggreener LLC and a lifetime member of the American Rainwater Catchment Systems Association of America (ARCSA), ARCSA Accredited Professional www.TheRainSaver.com and www.SavingWithRain.info

Russ Jackson, LEED AP, is Director of Sales for Rain Harvest Systems, a rain harvesting components wholesaler.

Page 3

Comments submitted via email to: [email protected] Comments copied to: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected] November 19, 2009 Dear Georgia Water Contingency Task Force Members: On behalf of American Rivers, thank you for the opportunity to provide the Task Force with our recommendations and input to help further inform your work as you develop a proposal to address the potential gap in supply that would exist should Judge Magnuson’s ruling go into effect in July 2012. We provide these recommendations in addition to the Georgia Water Coalition comments submitted on November 6, 2009 which we fully support and helped to formulate. These recommendations serve to elaborate and highlight particular points and complement the specific policy recommendations included in the Georgia Water Coalition document. With Judge Magnuson’s decision, Metro Atlanta is now faced with a very real water limitation, an urgent need to secure sustainable water supplies, and a clear opportunity to embark on a path towards sustainable water management to support future growth. There seems to be a popular perception that water conservation and efficiency and related “non-structural” water supply measures can provide only marginal benefits, not a substantial a source of supply as currently exists in Lake Lanier. The evidence and experience in many other cities strongly suggests otherwise. American Rivers urges the members of the Task Force to embrace sustainable water management policies and programs that are proven, cost-effective, timely and reliable. Specifically we recommend the following key steps as part of a comprehensive water supply program:

1. Projecting and planning for population and economic growth in conjunction with decreased per capita water supply needs;

2. Aggressively pursuing water conservation and efficiency investments, a cheaper, more reliable “hidden reservoir”;

3. Authorizing Lake Lanier for water supply purposes with clear conservation and efficiency requirements; and

4. Increasing capacity of existing dam/reservoir facilities, rather than building new ones. 5. Promoting development patterns, stormwater management strategies and

infrastructure that preserves or mimics existing natural hydrology (e.g. pervious pavement, rain gardens).

With these five steps, metro Atlanta can follow the path of other leading US and international cities that have successfully secured their immediate water needs, and also secured a more predictable and manageable future water supply, while guaranteeing sustainable and healthy flows for downstream communities and industries.

Page 4

2

1. Projecting and planning for population growth in conjunction with decreased water supply needs. As metro Atlanta grows in population, the water supply needed to sustain that population does NOT necessarily need to grow. In fact, many communities across the country and the Southeast have successfully increased population while maintaining or actually decreasing the total amount of water they use. There is a hidden reservoir embedded in our current inefficient water use. Some notable examples include Seattle which between the early 1990s and 2009 achieved a total reduction in water consumption of nearly 20% (saving 31 MGD) and a 33% per capita reduction in water consumption while increasing their population by 16%. Cobb County, GA added 42,000 new customers between 2003 and 2008 and maintained their 65MGD water consumption through conservation efforts. And between 2000 and 2009, Clayton County, GA reduced their total water consumption by 15% (eliminating the need for 4.5 MGD) while increasing their service population by 42%.

The Metropolitan North Georgia Water Planning District water demand projections do not plan for feasible decreases in per capita consumption or overall consumption. The population projections and the demand projections were the focus of a study conducted by the Pacific Institute in which both are criticized for being over-stated. 1 These same demand projections were used to determine the gap in water supply for 2012. We encourage the State of Georgia and metro Atlanta to follow the lead of other communities and plan for decreasing use of water supplies, tapping the hidden reservoir of efficiency to secure water for growing communities.

2. Aggressively pursuing water conservation and efficiency, our hidden reservoir. Metro Atlanta

communities consume, on average, 89 gallons per capita per day (gpcd)2. A conserving household consumes 45.2 gpcd. An analysis conducted by the Alliance for Water Efficiency for American Rivers showed that proven, low-hanging fruit water efficiency measures could yield up to 210 millions of gallons a day (MGD), a 33% savings, for metro Atlanta. Total water saved could make up for all the withdrawals from Lake Lanier which is currently permitted for 178 MGD to metro Atlanta. In addition, metro Atlanta could save up to $700 million by pursuing water efficiency to secure water supply as compared to building new reservoirs. Moreover, with efficiency, the Metropolitan North Georgia Water Planning District could eliminate the need for all six of its planned reservoirs (totaling 108.4 MGD)3 nearly two times over.

We encourage the State of Georgia and metro Atlanta to aggressively adopt the proven and effective programs listed below from American Rivers’ “Hidden Reservoir4” study that would effectively secure the majority of the water supply needed for metro Atlanta if Judge Magnuson’s decision were to go into effect. Metro Atlanta Estimated Water Savings Ranges5 Low High Stop Leaks in the water utility distribution pipes. • In metro Atlanta 117 MGD are lost each day to leaks and unaccounted for uses. • Fixing leaks saves water and helps a utility’s bottom line by eliminating the need

to treat and pump lost water that they are not paid for producing.

29.34 58.68

Price water to encourage efficient use. 53.79 78.89

1 Pacific Institute, A Review of Water Conservation Planning for the Atlanta, Georgia Region, August 2006. 2 Metropolitan North Georgia Water District, Water Supply and Conservation Management Plan, 2009. 3 Ibid. 4 American Rivers, Hidden Reservoir: Why Water Efficiency is the Best Solution for the Southeast. October 2008. www.AmericanRivers.org/WaterEfficiencyReport 5 Based on Metropolitan North Georgia Water Planning District 2003 consumption numbers, 652 MGD.

Page 5

3

• Water is not priced at its true value and some utilities incentivize water waste. • Conservation pricing provides a price signal to the customer to conserve, while

providing a price structure that protects the utility’s solvency in times of plentiful water and drought.

Meter all uses to measure water consumption. • Most multi-family/commercial buildings include water costs in monthly rent/fees

thereby eliminating market signals to b more efficient. • Sub-metering reduces risk and costs for the building manager by making the

water consumer accountable for their use.

5.87 9.39

Retrofit all buildings with water efficient fixtures. • Outdated fixtures and appliances waste water. Retrofitting building infrastructure

through incentives such as rebates/tax holidays and through ordinances such as Retrofit on Reconnect generate proven, reliable and significant water savings.

• A 35% decrease in water use is possible through retrofits alone.

36.35 54.52

Landscape to minimize waste. • On average 30% of household drinking water is used to water lawns, tree, and

shrubs. On average 50% of that water is wasted. • Peaks in demand generated by outdoor water use drive the need to develop new

water sources and expand water infrastructure. By reducing the peak, the life of infrastructure is extended, sometimes eliminating the need for new sources.

8.41 12.62

Total MGD Saved 133.76 MGD

214.10 MGD

Percent Savings 20.51% 32.84%

To take these water savings estimates to the next, more specific level, we recommend the affected utilities conduct an assessment of potential water efficiency policies and programs to determine which ones are best suited to their customer base and seasonal demand patterns. The Alliance for Water Efficiency recently designed a water tracking tool that can assess and compare over fifty different efficiency programs and supply options and compare costs and cost effectiveness. This is a valuable tool that City of Atlanta’s Department of Watershed and Cobb County’s Water System have started to use and we recommend the Task Force encourage all the affected utilities to take this next step to determine how best to secure water savings cost-effectively.

3. Authorizing Lake Lanier for water supply purposes. Lake Lanier is a readily available source of water supply. Authorizing Lake Lanier for water supply purposes is an economical and environmentally sound path to pursue, but only if the region commits to using the resource as efficiently as possible. Therefore, we encourage the State of Georgia and metro Atlanta to pursue the federal authorization of Lake Lanier for water supply purposes so long as the authorization also provides for healthy downstream flows, requires efficient use of the resource, and ensures that water supply not be prioritized over other authorized uses.

4. Increasing capacity of existing facilities. Georgia, and particularly north Georgia, has many

water supply and agricultural reservoirs that could potentially be expanded to provide additional water supply. Increasing capacity within some of the existing reservoirs has the potential to increase existing water supplies at a lower cost, within a shorter timeframe, and with fewer environmental issues. Dredging and raising pool elevations are worthy of consideration and could possibly be done in such a way that will not cause unwanted negative consequences downstream. We encourage the State of Georgia and metro Atlanta to investigate the potential for

Page 6

4

increasing the capacity of existing reservoirs and repurposing old quarries for water supply purposes.

5. Promoting development patterns, stormwater management strategies and infrastructure

that preserves or mimics existing natural hydrology. A major contributor to our water problems is the way we develop land. As the impervious surfaces that characterize sprawling development – roads, parking lots, driveways, and roofs – replace meadows and forests, rain no longer can seep into the ground to replenish base flows to rivers (base flow accounts for about half of a stream’s volume). In the 2002 report, Paving Our Way to Water Shortages6, American Rivers, Natural Resources Defense Council and Smart Growth America, determined that Atlanta topped the list of cities that lost water supply to sprawl. Comparing the level of imperviousness in 1997 to 1982, we found that the potential amount of water not infiltrated annually ranged from 56.9 billion to 132.8 billion gallons in Atlanta. Atlanta’s "losses" in 1997 amounted to enough water to supply the average daily household needs of 1.5 million to 3.6 million people per year.

Using smart growth and green infrastructure approaches, we can reduce the impact of development. While there is no one-size-fits-all definition, smart growth generally entails integrated planning and incentives and infrastructure investments to revitalize existing communities, prevention of leapfrogging sprawl, providing more transportation choices, and protecting open space. Green infrastructure includes protecting healthy landscapes like forests and small streams that naturally sustain clean water supplies; restoring degraded landscapes like floodplains and wetlands so they can better store flood water and recharge streams and aquifers; and replicating natural water systems in urban settings, to capture rainwater for outdoor watering and other uses and prevent stormwater and sewage pollution7. We encourage the State of Georgia and metro Atlanta to utilize well-established smart-growth planning and practices that can transform our development patterns and infrastructure to support the protection and restoration of natural hydrologic cycles that protect our water supplies.

World-class cities like metro Atlanta should strive for the smartest and most cost-effective strategies for water supply, just as we would in any other aspect of our civic and economic life. The strategies described above can provide the basis for a more sustainable and certain future for the region. Again, thank you for the opportunity to provide comments to the Task Force. Please do not hesitate to contact me with questions or for more information. Sincerely, Jenny Hoffner Director, Water Supply American Rivers

6 American Rivers, Paving Our Way to Water Shortages, 2002. http://www.americanrivers.org/library/reports-publications/paving-our-way-to-water.html 7 American Rivers, Natural Security: How Sustainable Water Strategies Prepare Communities for a Changing Climate 2009. http://www.americanrivers.org/our-work/global-warming-and-rivers/infrastructure/natural-security.html

Page 7

By Steven Andrew Williams

©2008

Page 8

Population of Metro Atlanta - 5,723,788

Metro Atlanta Area - 4832 Square Miles

Water used per day - 600,000,000 gallons

Page 9

87,560,480,000

Gallons of water

Page 10

Steve Williams

Page 11

TreeTT lloss iin hthe A lAtlanta metro area ffrom 71974 to 1996l dresulted iin a 33% iincrease iin stormwater r funoffffff (f(from heach

2-year kpeak storm ev )ent). hiThis ltranslates iinto an i destimated591 illimillion bicubic ffeet fof water or 74,420,987,013 llgallons. CCoststo bb ilduild i dengineered systems to iintercept hithis r funoffffff w ldould

$ billi ($ / bi f fcost $1.18 billion ($2/cubic ft. of storag ) i d lle) in 2001 dollars.

Data from the American Forests study Urban Ecosystem Analysis, Atlanta, GA

Page 12

This translates to $85.9 million per year.Page 13

The CSO Consent Decree is $1.1 BillionPage 15

Water Runoff

from Development

Page 16

Development in Atlanta, GA and sur rounding counties

contribute to a yearly loss of groundwater infiff ltration

ranging frff om 57 to 133 billion gallons frff om 1982-1997.

Page 17

American Rivers, Natural Resources Defense Council

and Smart Growth America, Report:

Paving Our Way to Water Shortages:How Sprawl Aggravates the Effects of Draught

August 28, 2002Page 18

Retention Ponds

Streets to Sewers

Page 20

Ponds

Page 21

Streets

to

Page 23

Erosion and Loss of Top Soil

Streets Flooding

The Flooding of Creeks and Streams

Page 24

Top Soil

Page 26

This is Arrow creek in Metro Atlanta

showing REAL examples of Downcutting,

Widening, Sedimentation and Stable,

Entrenchment with in a 1/4 mile stretch.

Page 29

Downcutting

Page 30

Widening

Page 31

The Chunnel connecting England and France, has become a

classic example of a technological marvel that has been

unable to justify the costs.

The Clean Water Atlanta initiative, the capital improvement

program underway to help resolve stormwater issues through

underground tunnels.

Page 34

Big Dig

Problems

Page 35

The

Chunnel

Page 36

BIOMIMICRY(from the Greek, bios - life and mimesis - imitation)

many of the issues plaguing

our water supply can be

resolved in an economical and

environmentally friendly way.

Page 39

~Janine Benyus (1997) Biomimicry: Innovation Inspired by Nature.

Nature as MentorBiomimicry uses an ecological standard to judge the "rightness" of our innovations.

Nature as MeasureBiomimicry is a new way of viewing and valuing nature.

Page 40

Scientists know

that headwater

streams make up

at least 80

percent of the

nation’s stream

network.

Streams provide is a filtering process

64 percent of inorganic nitrogen entering a small stream

is retained or transformed into a less harmful substance

within 1,000 yards Page 43

The $25 million Greenway Acquisition Project is to

be implemented in the City of Atlanta and fourteen

(14) counties in Metro Atlanta through March, 2007.

Targeted streams are Marked in red.

Page 44

Wetlands

Page 45

Detention ponds

Wetlands or

A Hole to Store Stormwater.

Page 46

Constructed wetlands provide protection against initial storm-flows which are typically high in pollutants.

Filtering, settling, and retention of suspended particulate matter.

Adsorption of metals into clay particles.

Transformation of compounds in the soil and water column.

Plant uptake of dissolved compounds such as nitrogen and phosphorus.

Page 47

What are other benefits of using (constructed) wetlands for stormwater management?

The negative water quality impacts of storm-flow to receiving streams is reduced.

Downstream channels are protected from scour, erosion and sedimentation by reducing peak flow.

Aesthetic and landscaping value is enhanced.

Wildlife habitat, especially waterfowl and warm water fisheries, is improved.

Page 48

How much does it cost to

construct and maintain

stormwater wetlands?

Maintenance: Costs vary, but normally range from

3 to 5% of construction costs

annually.

Capital Cost:

$ 1,500/impervious acre.

Page 49

Wetlands

Cisterns

Page 50

AA rraaiinn hhaarrvveessttiinngg tteecchhnniiiqquuee tthhaatt ccaann ssttoorree wwaatteerr ffoorr sshhoorrttaaggeeffff ss,, rreedduuccee

ssttoorrmmwwaatteerr aanndd rreeppllaaccee ppoottaabbllee wwaatteerr uusseess wwiitthh nnoonn--ppoottaabbllee wwaatteerr.rrrrPage 51

The idea of collecting rainwater has been around for thousands ofyears.

Treated water is an expensive resource.

Of all the water on Earth, 3% is suitable for human consumption. And of that 3%, most is either locked in polar ice caps and glaciers or hidden beyond the reach of commercial technologies. A little less than 1% of our water is found in lakes, rivers, and approachable underground aquifers.

By diverting rainwater during heavy rains, cisterns can store it for use during draught, this will also reduce stormwater run off.

Technology is readily available and relatively inexpensive.

Rainwater is a healthier alternative to potable water for plants and irrigation.

Rainwater collection is insurance for your plants.Page 52

Less than 50% of American household water usage requires the purification of drinking water.

Rainwater Uses 63%1: Toilets2: Laundry3: Outdoor4: Other

Purified Water Uses 37%5: Drinking/Cooking6: Dishwashing7: Shower and Bath

Page 53

Dust Control

Manufacturing Processes

Washing Vehicles

Specialized Cleaning Processes

Agriculture and Animal Husbandry

Concrete and Construction

Page 54

In large offices and public buildings, rainwater can be used for flushingtoilets and urinals and for cleaning.

Another use for rainwater in the commercial sector is ir rigation. Rainwater allows for an inexpensive and healthy way to water plants during droughts.

Page 55

Pervious Concrete

Wetlands

Cisterns

Page 56

ADVANTAGES

The advantages of using porous pavement include:

Reduces demand on stormwater

infrastructure.

Recharges local aquifers.

Retrofit existing imperious areas.

Page 58

USES

A few ideas for Pervious Concrete

Driveways

Paths and walkways

Curbing for streets

Retrofit existing imperious areas.

Page 59

Many pavement engineers and contractors lack expertise with this

technology.

CONCERNS

Porous pavement has a tendency to become clogged if improperly

installed or maintained.

Porous pavement can have a high rate of failure.

There is some risk of contaminating groundwater, depending on soil

conditions and aquifer susceptibility.

Some building codes may not allow for its installation.

Anaerobic conditions may develop in underlying soils if the soils are

unable to dry out between storm events. This may impede

microbiological decomposition.

Page 60

Pervious Concrete

Wetlands

Contouring Land-Earthworks

Cisterns

Page 61

Watch the water when it rains

Play and Experiment

Place swales and naturalistic rock walls through out the landscape to slow down the stormwater runoff and allow for ground water recharge.

Page 62

UUse l d ilandscaping h itechniques hthat didivert water to stayaa on hthela d, not rlannd, not r fun offffff h idon the side w lk r h r dalk or the road.

Page 63

Raise sidewalks and curbs to keep the water on the pervious land and off the streets and sidewalks.

Page 64

By creating an oasis stormwater runoff can be treated and returned to the ground in an attractive way.

Page 65

Green Roofs

Pervious Concrete

Wetlands

Contouring Land-Earthworks

Cisterns

Page 66

Amenity Space and Aesthetics

Page 68

Moderation of the Urban Heat Island Effect

Page 69

Food Production

Page 70

Improved Air Quality

Page 72

Stormwater Reduction

Page 73

Restoration of the natural environment in streams and rivers inurban, suburban and rural areas of at least 100 feet.

With almost 50 inches of rain a year. Atlanta has many

options to extend the current water supply for decades

Research, train, educate and reward professionals and the public in using landscaping and agricultural practices that manage and use stormwater more efficiently.

Research traditional water management practices that have been used for thousands of years and merge them with modern technology, to use rainwater and stormwater more effectively.

Finally and most important is the support of the Governor and Mayor for these measures of water use and influence the public to open their minds to new ways.

Evaluate construction of the stormwater tunnels success to see if the remaining cost of construction can be offset by more natural and cost efficient stormwater management practices.

These options include:

Page 74

HH. DDavidaa TThhurstoon PProffessor EEmeritus - DDeppartmmentt off PPlantt PPatthology,yy CCorrnell UUniversitty,yy IIthhaca, NNYY,YY1448500

FFarFF mmiinngg iin NNatuure's IImaagge by JJuddiithJJ DD. SSoulle andd JJon KK. PPiipperr,rr is a bookk abbouut thhe ssciennccee of suustaainabblleaaggrriculltture. TThe authhorrs, twwo prrofessional eccollogists at tthhe LLannd IInnstitute, KKansas UUSSAA.

GGeorrggiiaa SSttorrmwaatter MMaannaagemmennt MMaanuall: VVoluumeVV 1: AAttllanntta RReeRRR ggionnaal CCommmmissiionn

wwwww.SSttaarrww kkEEnrrr viirrnn onnmmeennttaall.ccoomm

WWiikkiippeWWW ddiiaa

RRaaiinnwwaatterr HHaarrvveessttiing fforr DDrff yyllannddss by BBrraadd LLaanncaastterr

CConnssttrructtiionn RReeRRRR ssoouurrcces iiss BBrriitaainn's fifirrstt ecoolooggiiccaall bbuiilldderrss' mmeerrcchhaanntt, aanndd aa cenntterr ffoor eff ccollooggiiccaall bbuuiillddiinngg.gg

UUrbbaann EEccossyssteemm AAnnaallysiss, AAttllaannttaa MMettrroo AArreeaa, CCaallcuullattinng tthhe VValluueVV ooff NNaattuurree, AAMMEERRIICCAANN FFOORREESSTTSSPP.OOPPP . BBooxxx 2200000 WWaasshhiinnggttoonn DDCC 200001133WWWW

WWhherree RRiivveerrss AArree BBoornn:TThhe SScciennttifific IImmpperraattiivvee fforrff DDeffeennddiinngg SSmmaallll SSttrreeaamms aanndd WWeeWWW ttlaannddss. AAmmeerriicannRRiivveerrss aanndd tthhe SSiierrrraa CClluubb

AAmmeerriiccaann RRiivveerrss, NNaattuurraall RReRR ssoouurceess DDeffeennssee CCoouunncciil aanndd SSmmaarrtt GGrroowwtthh AAmmeerriicaa, RReRR ppoorrtt

TThee AAllcoovvyy WWaaWW tterrshhedd PProtteeccttiioonn PPrroojjecct, UUnniivveerrssityy ooff GGeeoorrggiiaa’ss IInnsttiittuutte ooff EEnnerrggyy aanndd tthhee NNoorrttthhheeaassttGGeeoorrggiiaa RR

yeRR ggionnaall DDeey

vveelooppmmennttaal CCeentterr

BBrraadd LLaannccaastteerr wwwwww..HHaarrvvwwww eessttiinnggRRaaiinn.ccoomm RRaaiinnwwaatteerr HHaarrvveesttiinngg fforr DDrrffff yyllaannddss VVooll. II&&IIIIVV

Page 75

Dargan Scott Cole - 1 -

Ideas for Metro Atlanta Water Supply Contingency Planning

Short-Term Solutions (Implementable by 2012)Mid-Term Solutions (Implementable by 2015)Long-Term Solutions (Implementable post 2015)

Gwinnett County

• Current demand of 69 mgd (AA), 88 mgd (PM), 110 mgd (PD)1

Short-Term

• Conservation – reduces Average Annual demand from high of 72 mgd in 2007 to 68 mgd and Peak Month demand from 108 mgd in 2007 to 88 mgd or less.

• Lake Lanier – Continued withdrawals from Lake Lanier in the amount of 2 mgd (AA) and 3.2 mgd (PD).2

• Hard Labor Creek Reservoir (Walton and Oconee Counties). o The project is scheduled to start construction in Q1 2010. o Initial yield is in the range of 13 mgd (AA) and 21 mgd (PD)3. o Walton County currently uses 4.3 mgd (AA) and 6.9 mgd (PD).o Project will have 8.7 mgd (AA) and 14.1 mgd (PD) available for short-

term supply.o The project’s yield can be increased to nearly 42 mgd (AA) and 62 (PD)

with the construction of a raw water intake and pipeline from the Appalachee River.

o If constructed, the project will have 38 mgd (AA) and 57 mgd (PD) available for short-term supply.

o Gwinnett would have to find a long-term solution as water from this project will be needed to satisfy projected demand in Walton and Oconee Counties.

Requires transfer into the MNGWPD from outside.IBT from Oconee to Ocmulgee or Chattahoochee basinWater treatment plant neededTransmission lines needed

• City of Monroe Reservoir (Walton County). o The project has a current yield of 10 mgd (AA)4 and 16 mgd (PD). o Monroe has a current demand of 1.6 mgd (AA) and 2.7.

1 Uses EPD data to calculate AA and PM demand as average of January withdrawals for 2007 – 2009

(AA) and August withdrawals for 2007 – 2009 (PM).2 Under the Judges Order, the city of Buford may continue to withdraw 2 mgd (AA) from Lake Lanier.

3 Peak day demand is calculated as 1.6 times AA 4 Estimated

Page 77

15880614.1 - 2 -

o Reservoir has 8 mgd (AA) and 13 mgd (PD) available immediately.o Gwinnett would have to find a long-term solution as water from this

project will be needed to satisfy projected demand in Monroe.Water treatment plant neededTransmission lines needed

• Indirect Reuse – Initiation of an indirect reuse program that does not utilize Lake Lanier for mixing.

o Additional capacity of 27 mgd (AA)5 and 43 mgd (PD)

• Total capacity of 75 mgd (AA) and 116 mgd (PD)

Mid-Term

• Expand Yargo State Park reservoir – According to the reservoir study funded by GEFA, the Yargo State Park reservoir can be expanded by approximately 3 billion gallons.

• Barrow County Reservoir – Barrow County Water & Sewerage Authority is considering two reservoirs totaling 16 mgd (AA) and 25 mgd (PD).

Long-Term

• Reallocation of storage in Lake Lanier• New Walton County Reservoir• New Hall County Reservoir• New Jackson County Reservoir

Other Options

• Lake Varner Reservoir (Newton County). o The project has a current yield of 28 mgd (AA) and 45 mgd (PD). o Newton has a current demand of 6.7 mgd (AA) and 10.7 mgd (PD).o Reservoir has 21.3 mgd (AA) 6 and 34.3 mgd (PD) available immediately.

Requires transfer into the MNGWPD from outside.Water treatment plant neededTransmission lines needed

• Newton County Bear Creek Reservoir. o The project has a proposed yield of 28 mgd (AA) and 45 mgd (PD).

Requires transfer into the MNGWPD from outside.Water treatment plant needed

5 Assumes 60% returns6 Assumes, for calculation purposes, Walton County’s 25% is met by the Hard Labor Creek reservoir

project

Page 78

15880614.1 - 3 -

Transmission lines needed

• Proposed Glades Reservoir (Hall County). o The project has a proposed yield of 6.5 mgd (AA) and 10.4 mgd (PD). o Potential pump storage options which would significantly increase the

reservoir’s yield are currently under review.Water treatment plant neededTransmission lines needed

Page 79

15880614.1 - 4 -

DeKalb County

• Current Demand of 65 mgd (AA), 80 mgd (PM), 102 mgd (PD)7

Short-Term

• Conservation - reduces Average Annual demand from high of 69 mgd in 2007 to 65 mgd and Peak Month demand from 92 mgd in 2007 to 80 mgd or less.

• Chattahoochee River -- Continued withdrawals from the Chattahoochee River in the amount of 30 mgd (AA) and 48 mgd (PD).8

• Big Haynes Creek Reservoir (Rockdale County). o The project has a current yield of 27 mgd (AA) and 43 mgd (PD). o Rockdale has a current demand of 9 mgd (AA) and 14.4 mgd (PD).o Reservoir has 18 mgd (AA) and 28.6 mgd (PD) available immediately.o Gwinnett would have to find a long-term solution as water from this

project will be needed to satisfy projected demand in Rockdale County.Water Treatment Plant neededTransmission lines needed

• Indirect Reuse – Initiate an indirect reuse program.o Additional capacity of 34 mgd (AA)9 and 46 mgd (PD)


Mid-Term

• Expand Rockdale Reservoir - according to the reservoir study funded by GEFA, Rockdale’s Big Haynes Creek Reservoir can be expanded by approximately 5.4 billion gallons.

• Lake Varner Reservoir (Newton County). o The project has a current yield of 28 mgd (AA) and 45 mgd (PD). o Newton has a current demand of 6.7 mgd (AA) and 10.7 mgd (PD).o Reservoir has 21.3 mgd (AA)10 and 34.3 mgd (PD) available immediately.

Requires transfer into the MNGWPD from outside.Water treatment plant needed

7 Uses EPD data to calculate AA and PM demand as average of January withdrawals for 2007-2009 (AA)

and August withdrawals for 2007 – 2009 (PM). 8 Under the Judges Order, metro Atlanta may rely on 230 mgd of potential water supply from the

Chattahoochee River downstream of Buford Dam. The four major users are Dekalb County, Fulton County, City of Atlanta, and Cobb County.

9 Assumes 60% returns10 Assumes, for calculation purposes, Walton County’s 25% is met by the Hard Labor Creek reservoir

project

Page 80

15880614.1 - 5 -

Transmission lines needed

Long-Term

• Reallocation of Lake Lanier• Expansion of Newton County’s Cornish Creek reservoir• Proposed Bear Creek Reservoir in Newton County

Page 81

15880614.1 - 6 -

Fulton County (including the City of Atlanta)


Short-Term

• Conservation - reduces Average Annual demand from high of 121 mgd in 2007 to 113 mgd and Peak Month demand from 163 mgd in 2007 to 139 mgd or less.

• Chattahoochee River - Continued withdrawals from the Chattahoochee River in the amount of 80 mgd (AA) and 128 mgd (PD).12

• Indirect Reuse program that utilized a combination of the Chattahoochee River for mixing and the Bellwood Quarry for storage.

o Additional capacity of 48 mgd (AA)13 and 77 mgd (PD)


Mid-Term

• South Fulton Reservoir• Fayette County System interconnection

Long-Term

• New Dawson Forest reservoir• New Etowah River reservoir• Reallocation of Lake Lanier

Other Options

• Douglas County System interconnection• Cobb County System interconnection

11 Uses EPD data to calculate AA and PM demand as average of January withdrawals for 2007-2009 (AA)

and August withdrawals for 2007-2009 (PM). 12 Under the Judges Order, Metro Atlanta may rely on 230 mgd of potential water supply from the

Chattahoochee River downstream of Buford Dam. The four major users are Dekalb County, Fulton County, City of Atlanta, and Cobb County.

13 Assumes 60% returns

Page 82

15880614.1 - 7 -

Cobb County


Short-Term

• Lake Allatoona - Continued withdrawals from Lake Allatoona.

• Chattahoochee River - Continued withdrawals from the Chattahoochee River in the amount of 30 mgd (AA) and 48 mgd (PD).15

• Hickory Log Creek Reservoiro The project has a permitted yield of 44 mgd (AA) and 70 mgd (PD). o Canton has a current demand of 2.5 mgd (AA) and 4 mgd (PD).o Reservoir has 42 mgd (AA) and 66 mgd (PD) available immediately.

Water Treatment Plant neededTransmission lines needed

Mid-Term

• Indirect Reuseo An indirect reuse program that utilizes the Chattahoochee River for

mixingo A program that utilizes Lake Allatoona for mixing.

• Proposed Paulding County Reservoir

Long-Term

• Reallocation of Lake Lanier • Reallocation of Lake Allatoona• New Dawson Forest Reservoir• New Etowah River Basin reservoir

Other Options

• Cherokee County’s Hollis Lathem Reservoir

14 Uses EPD data to calculate AA and PM demand as average of January withdrawals for 2007 - 2009(AA)

and August withdrawals for 2007 – 2009 (PM). 15 Under the Judges Order, Metro Atlanta may rely on 230 mgd of potential water supply from the

Chattahoochee River downstream of Buford Dam. The Four major users are Dekalb County, Fulton County, City of Atlanta, and Cobb County.

Page 83

15880614.1 - 8 -

Hall County

• Current demand of 17 mgd (AA), 21 mgd (PM), 27 mgd (PD

Short-Term

• Conservation - reduces Average Annual demand from high of 18 in 2007 to 17 mgd and Peak Month demand from 25 mgd in 2007 to 21 mgd or less.

• Lake Lanier - Continued withdrawals from Lake Lanier in the amount of 8 mgd (AA) and 12.8 mgd (PD).16

• Cedar Creek Reservoir – 7.5 mgd (AA) and 12 mgd (PD)

• Indirect Reuse – An indirect reuse program that utilizes Lake Lanier for mixing.o Additional capacity of 9 mgd (AA)17 and 15 mgd (PD)

• Total capacity of 24.5 mgd (AA) and 39 mgd (PD)

Mid-Term

• Proposed Glades Reservoir (Hall County). o The project has a proposed yield of 6.5 mgd (AA) and 10.4 mgd (PD). o Potential pump storage options which would significantly increase the

reservoir’s yield are currently under review.Water Treatment Plant neededTransmission lines needed

Long-Term

• Reallocation of Lake Lanier • New Dawson Forest Reservoir

Other Options

• Jackson County Reservoir• North Hall County Reservoir• White County Reservoir

16 Under the Judges Order, the City of Gainesville may continue to withdraw 8 mgd (AA) from Lake

Lanier.

17 Assumes 60% returns

Page 84

15880614.1 - 9 -

Forsyth County

• Current demand of 13.5 mgd (AA), 21 mgd (PM), 21.6 mgd (PD)

Short Term

• Conservation - reduces Peak Month demand from 28 mgd in 2007 to 21 mgd or less.

• Fulton County’s short-term options indicate as surplus of 15 mgd (AA) and 24 mgd (PD).

o Transmission lines needed

Mid-term

• Proposed Russell Creek Reservoiro Projected yield of 10 mgd (AA) and 16 mgd (PD)

• Cherokee County’s Hollis Lathem Reservoiro Cherokee has a current demand of 16 mgd (AA) and 26 mgd (PD)18

o Reservoir has a permitted yield of 28 mgd (AA) and 45 mgd (PD) o Reservoir has 8 mgd (AA) and 19 mgd (PD) available immediately.

Long-Term

• Reallocation of Lake Lanier• New Dawson Forest Reservoir• New Etowah Basin Reservoir

18 Assumes none of the demand is met by the Hickory Log Creek Reservoir

Page 85

December 9, 2009

From: George Moore, Chair, Webster County Board of CommissonersJoe Lee Williams, Chair, Stewart County Board of CommissionersGeorge Neal, Chair, Marion Board of Commissioners

To: Georgia Water Contingency Task Force

Subject: Water Proposal

Greetings: As county commission chairs of three smaller and less wealthy counties in the Flint River Basin, we have have been studying an exciting concept that would enable the Flint River Basin to contribute materially to offsetting the volume of water now used out of Lake Lanier by the Atlanta metro area -- without the vexing problem of moving water from one river basin to another, and with portions of the preliminary work already completed.

As a side benefit, our proposal would aid substantially in improving the economic status of several of the state’s smaller counties.

We learned recently that your task force is to present a list of proposed options this Friday. In view of this, we are emailing you this brief for possible inclusion, and will follow up with hard copies. Background Groundwork in this area was actually begun in the early 1960s,and it should be possible to capitalize on this earlier work to speed up the process considerably. . . .

In 1963, a United States Study Commission reported on a plan for the development of land and water resources of Southeastern riverbasins, including the Appalachicola, Chattahoochee and Flint River basins in Georgia. Six possible reservoir sites in these basins were studied.

The Study Commission recommended construction of three of these sites located within the eight-county area of what was then the Central Georgia Area Planning and Development Commission: the Lower Auchumpkee Project in Taylor and Crawford counties, the

Page 93

Muckalee Project located in Schley County, and the Kinchafoonee Project in our three counties of Webster, Stewart and Marion.

This recommendation was seconded by the Area Planning and Development Commission, whose temporary chairman at the time was Georgia Sen. Jimmy Carter.

As small counties with limited staff and resources, we are not able to chronicle the histories of all of these proposed reservoirs -- or of the other three that were studied: Sprewell Bluff, Lazer Creek and Lower Flint. The purpose of this document is to concentrate on Kinchafoonee, for which we do have a body of knowledge, as an example of how the state could utilize research already done to speed up the reservoir planning and construction process -- while providing much-needed local and regional economic stimulus as an added benefit. With that in mind. . . .

Following the two recommendations to pursue construction of Kinchafoonee Lake, the U. S. Department of Commerce EconomicDevelopment Development Administration funded four separate, detailed studies: a 1972 overview, a 1973 evaluation of hydrology, soils and geology, a preliminary evaluation of environmental impact in 1974, and a 1975 development impact study.

These studies are available and should speed up considerably the process of developing Lake Kinchafoonee as a surface water source, should the state decide to go in this direction. And, while we have no direct knowledge, we would assume that similar materials are available for the other proposed reservoirs. (We do have some knowledge of the proposed Lazer Creek reservoir in Talbot County and feel that it would fit the same criteria applied to the three reservoirs mentioned earlier.)

Lake Kinchafoonee

Lake Kinchafoonee would be created by a dam a few miles northwest of Preston in Webster County. Water would back up for several miles into Marion County toward Buena Vista, and northwestward into Stewart County. The lake would be about 10 miles long and one mile wide, and would cover 4,450 acres. The area which would be inundated is mostly woodland and relocations should be minor. While originally contemplated as a source for flood control and

Page 94

recreation, it should be relatively simple to change the primary function of Kinchafoonee to that of a surface water reservoir.

This could be one of a series of such lakes, connected by computer to analyze weather, rainfall and other data and automatically release water as necessary to support the state’s overall water system.

A corollary benefit of this particular lake would be the provision of a significant source of much-needed revenue for Webster, Stewart and Marion counties. The original Kinchafoonee proposal called for four recreational complexes to include marinas, wet and dry boat storage, picnic areas, restaurants and other retail activities.

Given the rapid expansion of Fort Benning and other areas just to the north, the lake also could be a prime location for lakeside first-and-second home and retirement communities -- rigidly controlled by a three-county zoning authority to prevent the type of helter-skelter growth that has damaged other lakes in the area.

One would anticipate the same type of regional economic stimulus from other lakes in the series. Recommendation

As mentioned earlier, we represent three small counties with bold ideas but few resources with which to carry them out. Since timing is essential, we propose that the State of Georgia initiate immediately a study to study the feasibility of our proposal as it applies to both Kinchafoonee Lake and the other reservoirs mentioned in the 1963 Study Commission recommendations.

Respectfully submitted, George MooreJoe Lee WilliamsGeorge Neal

Page 95

Memo To: Governor’s Water Contingency Task Force

From: Frank Carl, Science Advisor, Savannah Riverkeeper, Inc.Tonya Bonitatibus, Riverkeeper and Executive Director, Savannah Riverkeeper, Inc

Re: November 23, 2009 Report from the Task Force

Given the Governor’s assigned timeline for the task force we can understand the accelerated schedule for providing information. Unfortunately, that accelerated schedule will inevitably lead to errors in the final product. We wish to take this opportunity to provide some input to minimize the errors and political fallout that are bound to happen with such an accelerated schedule. Maybe it should be impressed upon the Governor as the old saying goes that “failure to plan on your part does not constitute an emergency on my part.”

At any rate we recognize that the Governor is simply providing himself with some alternatives that he should have provided himself much earlier instead of relying totally on winning the legal option. Unfortunately, taking a negotiated option off the table as a potential solution to the problem is a mistake. It would be very informative if we could compare the supply volumes and costs of a negotiated use of Lanier to the other options being considered. At this point we can only assume that the negotiated option would provide more water more cheaply than any other option except conservation. But of course that option cannot be evaluated in the current context because the Governor has taken it off the table.

It is also obvious that the task force has been tasked to consider only the economic drivers involved and to ignore the need for water for the health and welfare of the people of Georgia. Indeed, that priority has been prominent in the water planning process from the beginning back in 2005 when the mission statement put the economy ahead of the health and welfare of the people of Georgia. The mission statement for the Water Council states, "Georgia manages water resources in a sustainable manner to support the state’s economy, to protect public health and natural systems, and to enhance the quality of life for all citizens." We need to get our priorities straight, starting now. We should use water to support the economy, but let’s make sure that it is not at the expense of the people.

Maybe it is time to stop feeding the ravenous growth machine of the metro area, the growth that keeps developers happy but saddles the people of the metro area with sprawl, transportation issues, bad air, higher taxes, and a myriad of land use and water quality problems. Maybe it is time to allow the development in the metro area to run up against its natural constraints, a finite water supply and a 90 minute commute. Maybe it’s time to allow development to follow the resources instead of commandeering the resources of others to allow us to continue to play the same old game, growing metro Atlanta.

The Task Force has made its conference with the Georgia Water Coalition a prominent part of its November 23 report, leaving the impression that the input of conservation groups had been included in the report. Unfortunately, the report did not use the information provided by the Georgia Water Coalition in its report and the inclusion of the GWC in the Task Force report seems to be just window dressing. In fact, the GWC has calculated that the water saved by

Page 97

earnest conservation efforts in the metro district (and some already exist) would be much greater than the 35 MGD used in the Task Force report. Indeed, the GWC indicates that a combination of conservation and good faith negotiation with Alabama and Florida could easily produce enough water for current needs in the metro district. The inflated predictions of future needs used by the Task Force should be brought into perspective by the constraints mentioned in the previous paragraph. The growth industry needs to branch out and follow the resources. The current study should be used not only to find other sources of water but to understand the limits of growth in the metro area. The information the Task Force is generating can help us do that.

With the possible exception of West Point Lake the control options mentioned (Lake Burton, Lake Hartwell and the Tennessee River) would essentially be stealing someone else’s water. And taking water from West Point Lake would re-open the same can of worms that the Task Force is trying to close. It would involve negotiations with Alabama and Florida.

Taking water from Lake Burton would likely involve negotiations with the Savannah/Upper Ogeechee Water Planning Council and they just passed (unanimously) a resolution to ban interbasin transfers. While the infrastructure for transferring the water may be relatively cheap, in this case the water itself may end up being politically expensive. In addition, it appears thatcurrently a transfer from Lake Burton to the Chattahoochee would be illegal. Taking water from Lake Hartwell and transferring it into the North Georgia Metro District would also be illegal within Georgia, but more importantly might be challenged by South Carolina and by Georgia cities downstream (Augusta and Savannah).

Taking water from the Tennessee River is fraught with a myriad of problems, least of which is the expense. First, we do not think that it will matter much if the state line is successfully challenged to gain access to the river. Tennessee River water is highly allocated to a variety of uses downstream and downstream includes AL, TN, KY, IL, MO, AR, MS, and LA. Now, thatis a lawsuit. While it may be possible to physically control water from the four sources under the control option, it may be much more difficult to legally control that water. We advise you to consider these comments when prioritizing the control options for the Governor. In fact, our advice would be to forget the control options. They are not really options.

We know that the Governor is partial to building reservoirs to capture water that is available in times of excess rainfall to be used in times of drought. While this mechanism can provide water to a water-starved city, there are major disadvantages to building reservoirs. First, the cheapest mechanism for building a reservoir is to dam a stream. Creating a reservoir where a stream once flowed completely changes not only the aquatic ecosystem but also the terrestrial ecosystem surrounding the new reservoir. Re-equilibration of an ecosystem takes generations, maybe centuries. These changes to nature should not be taken lightly. Second, there will be considerable pressure from the growth industry to use these newly built reservoirs as real estate amenities. I urge you to resist that pressure for two reasons. (1) Development on the shores of these new reservoirs will cause water quality problems that will have to be treated before the water can be used as a drinking water source. That treatment can become expensive. Indeed, New York City calculated that it would be cheaper for them to buy the watershed in the Catskills that supplies their drinking water than it was to treat the drinking water if they allowed development on the shores of their reservoir. (2) Making the land around the reservoir available

Page 98

for real estate development will eventually lead to pressure to manage the water resource as a real estate resource. If you will be acquiring land to use for a reservoir for water supply, it would be disingenuous to allow the growth industry to drive up the cost of the water supply while profiting from development of land that was acquired for other reasons. And finally, if reservoirs are to be built, we recommend dedicated off-stream reservoirs where water is pumped into the reservoir during periods of excess and the reservoir does not interrupt the flow of an existing stream.

We wish you luck in providing a priority list for the Governor. We look forward to seeing that list. And we appreciate the opportunity to comment on your November 23 report.

Page 99

~ 1 ~

Tim Lowe December 7, 2009Co-ChairGeorgia Water Contingency Planning Task Force

Dear Mr Lowe:

Desalinization & Hydrogen Production System Using Wave Energy

We wish to submit to your Task Force, for its consideration, preliminary details of a technicalsolution that we have developed that we believe will have application to the challenges being addressed by the Task Force.

Our solution, which will generate multiple outcomes, utilizes floats, placed in suitable, designated ocean areas that can generate:

freshwater through Reverse Osmosis;hydrogen gas from the freshwater;electrical power to the grid; orfor powering H2 production.With production of 250 million gallons of freshwater per day, the electric power cost savings would be $3,000,000 per day.No greenhouse gases, including CO2

Our technology platform is a direct competitor to desalination technology, however, it has significant operational and capital cost advantages over that technology.

We are preparing to embark on proof-of-concept trials to validate the performance of our technology and would welcome the opportunity to partner with the State of Georgia in this endeavor.

While we understand that your Task Force will not be recommending the adoption of specific technology solutions, we would, however, like this technology to be considered for its relevance to the challenges being addressed by the Task Force.

We would welcome the opportunity to discuss this opportunity further with you or your staff team.

Sincerely,

Robert Rigby Milton R. SeilerInventor Physicist

Attachment: See below

Page 100

~ 2 ~

Proprietary Information. Patent pending. Not to be disclosed outside the U.S. Government without permission of the author.

Desalinization & Hydrogen Production SystemUsing Wave Energy

Robert Rigby, Inventor

Milton R. Seiler, Physicist

Page 101

~ 3 ~

Overview of Technology Solution:Floats, placed in suitable, designated ocean areas, can generate:

Freshwater through Reverse Osmosis;Hydrogen gas from the freshwater;Electrical Power to the grid; orFor powering H2 production.

Freshwater Production Details:

Reverse Osmosis requires about 900 psi to force seawater through the filters.

Consider a basic, 14 sq. ft. float. As the wave crest applies lifting force to the float, the first 1 foot of crest rise will generate 14 x 64 x 1 = 900 lbs. force.

If the float is connected rigidly to a reverse osmosis filter line of 1 sq. inch area, the pressure on the filter will begin to exceed 900 psi after a 1 foot rise. Assume wave crests occurring every 5 seconds (12 strokes per minute).

2 ft crest 6 ft. crestWater flow:Cu. inch per stroke 12 60Cu. inch per day 207,360 1,036,800Gallons per day 893 4464Freshwater gallons per day 179 893(20% recovery. This allows for periodic maintenance, reduced wave crests.)


Page 102

~ 4 ~

Convert a 1 Million-Gallon/day System to Production of H2.

System designed to maximize H2 production. Electric power provided from grid.

Max. H2 per day, kg. 4E+05 (72 kg. of H2 per day from a 14 sq.ft. float)Max. H2 per day, liters 4.5E+09 Electric power cost, per day. $2,000,000(This causes concern. Can electric power be produced directly by the floats? YES)

2 ft. crest 6 ft. crestRequired float area, acres 1.8 0.36

One kg. of H2 is about 11,400 liters. One kg. of H2 is approx. energy equivalent of one gallon of gasoline. (per DOE)

Use Designated Floats for Electric Power GenerationFor direct sale to Power Company.For driving the H2 generators, saving cost of electric power.

Consider a 14 sq. ft. float in 2 ft. swells.Generate 1800 ft. lbs. energy per stroke, 12 strokes per minute.

1800 x 12 = 21600 ft. lbs. per minute. Pump to a 25 ft. head. (This is an arbitrary height, just for illustration purposes) 21600/25 = 864 lbs. of water delivered per minute.

This equals 13.5 cu. ft./minute, or 100 gallons per minute.

Use Harris Turbine with a head of 25 feet. This would deliver 230 watts, or 0.23 kwhr. of energy per hour. A 14 sq. ft. float will deliver 3 kg. H2 per hour, requiring 147 kwhr. of energy. Hence we will need 147/0.23 = 639 floats, 14 sq. ft. each, to deliver the required power for one additional float.


Page 103

~ 5 ~


Page 104

~ 6 ~

Reverse Osmosis flow, cu. inch, versus area of pipe,a, in sq. inch, and float area, A, in sq.Optimum pipe area = A/14 sq. in., with A in sq. ft.

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5

Pipe area, sq. inch

Volum

e of fl

ow, c

u. inc

h

The above analysis assumes a 2-ft crest

Theoretical Predictions of the Wave Energy provided by analysis at a university in Florida

Assume 2.5 meter/second group velocity, 0.3 meter amplitudeEnergy per meter of crest length = 96,208 kilojoules per dayThis would produce 411771 kilojoules per day from a float 14 ft long.Producing H2 at 100% purity the yield would be 3.5 kg. of H2 per day.

Conclusions. A 14 sq. ft. float, requiring that it produce its own electricity for its H2 production, would produce 72 kg. / 640 = 0.11 kg of H2. (Remember that a 14 sq. ft. float would produce 72 kg. per day if all the power were supplied from the grid. It would take the output of 640 floats, each 14 sq. ft., to produce the same electric power)

0.11/3.5 = 0.031. Hence we are extracting about 3% of the wave energy.


Page 105

~ 7 ~

Some Options for System Design and Production

Baseline. 8960 sq. ft. of floats, 2 ft. crests, 20% freshwater recovery. Scale directly to other float areas. (this represents 640 floats, each of area 14 sq. ft.)

Option 1. Produce freshwater only. 114,278 gallons per day. Income $1485 per day @$0.013 per gallon

Option 2. Use all freshwater production to drive H2 generators. Pay power company for electric. About 46,000 kg of H2 per day. Income $230,000 per day at $5 per kg. Expense $225,792 per day for electric power at $0.10 per kwhr.

Option 3. Produce H2 only. Produce necessary electric power from 8946 sq. ft. of floats. Freshwater produced from remaining 14 sq. ft of floats, driving 72 kg. of H2 production per day. $360 income per day @ $5 per kg.

Option 4. Electric power production only. Sell 3533 kwhr per day to grid. Income: $177 per day at $0.05 per kwhr.

Option 5. Various combinations of the above.

Other cost issues. Staff requirements. Maintenance of the floats. Initial investment. Reverse osmosis maintenance. Turbine maintenance.

Summary of Potential Income Per Day1 million gallon/day system. All power from floats. 20% recovery

Type of System Freshwater only system

Option 1.

Hydrogen only systemOption 3

Electric Power only.Option 4

Sale of freshwater @$0.013 per gallon

$13,000 per day $0 (no sales) $ 0

Sale of hydrogen @ $5 per kg.

$0 $3150 per day $0

Sale of Electric power @ $0.05 per kwhr.

$0 $0 $1550 per day @ $0.05 per kwhr.


Page 106

~ 8 ~

Suggested Feasibility DemonstrationAssume 2 ft. swell, every 5 seconds, with a 14 sq. ft. float.Use wave tank or selected marine facility.Drive a 1sq. inch line into reverse osmosis filter to produce freshwater.Produce about 890 gallons per day (about 140 liters per hour).Filter the freshwater.Use Hgenerator model LM-200, or equivalent, to generate H2 gasFeed LM-200 with 0.01 liter of freshwater per hour.Generate about 12 liters of H2 per hour.Dry the H2.Demonstrate burning of H2.

Research & Design IssuesFloat Design. Materials, operational requirements, maintenance.RO Filter Design. Flat, spiral, material, maintenance.Recovery Ratio. Trade-offs between recovery ratio and costs.Overall System Design. Optimization for requirements and locality.Hydrogen generation. Intended uses, requirements, storage. Electric power generation. For grid, for H2 generation, other.Site selection. Coordination with agencies and communities. Safety. Hurricane shutdown. Worker procedures.


Page 107

~ 9 ~

An Alternative System. Use Solar Cells to Produce the Electricity. Assumes 14 watts average from each square foot of solar cell.

Analysis of Freshwater Production with Floats Covered with Solar Panels

Float area, acres

Fresh-waterper day, gallons,20%recovery

(M = million)

Incomefrom sale of water,per day, $0.013 per gal.

Potentialkg of H2per day(wouldrequiregridsupply)

Req’dkwhrfor fullH2produc-tion. perday

Maxkwhrper 4 hour dayavailablefrom solar cells

Incomefrom sale ofelectric, per day,$0.10 perkwhr

Incomefrom sale ofH2, $6per kwhr, per day

TotalH2producedper day, kg

Totalsales, per day. ChooseH2 orElectric)

(M = million)

1.8 1 M $13.000 406,000 20 M 4390 $439 $538 90 $13,439-13,53850 27.8 M $361,000 11.3 M 553 M 122,000 $12,200 $14,900 2483 $373,200-375,900100 55.6 M $722,000 22.6 M 1110 M 244,000 $24,400 $29,900 4966 $746,400-751,900500 278 M $3.61 M 113 M 5530 M 1.22 M $122,00

0$149,000 24833 $3.73 M-3.76 M

The solar cells, occupying the same area as the total float area, can only supply 0.00022 of the total required power to produce the H2 that is potentially available from the freshwater generated by the floats.


Page 108

~ 10 ~Page 109

Georgia River Network

126 S. Milledge Avenue Suite E3 Athens, GA 30605 Phone: 706-549-4508 Fax: 706-549-7791 [email protected] http://www.garivers.org

STAFF April Ingle Doug Barnes Ben Emanuel Jesslyn Shields Dana Skelton MISSION: Georgia River Network is working to ensure a clean water legacy by engaging and empowering Georgians to protect and restore our rivers from the mountains to the coast. GOALS: More people involved in protecting and managing Georgia’s waters Increasing awareness of the issues that threaten the health of our waters Sharing resources to improve the protection of Georgia’s waters

Providing the means to advocate for the health of our waters

November 20, 2009

Dear Georgia Water Contingency Task Force Members:

Georgia River Network thanks you for the opportunity to provide our input as you develop contingency recommendations in response to Judge Magnuson’s ruling. Georgia River Network represents over 600 Georgia citizens and 30+ river protection organizations.

We provide these recommendations in addition to the comments submitted by the Georgia Water Coalition, of which we are a member.

With Judge Magnuson’s decision, Metro Atlanta has an opportunity to embrace sustainable water management to support future water supply needs. To embrace this opportunity, Georgia River Network suggests the Task Force:

1. Focus strategies on aggressive use of water conservation and efficiency measures which will create a “hidden reservoir” of water at a price per gallon significantly less than other options, creating a true “Culture of Conservation” in Georgia.

2. Make reauthorization and reallocation of the water from Lake Lanier a central component of future water supply plans.

3. Use water demand projections that realistically reflect Metro-Atlanta’s future water needs.

4. Not deprive downstream communities of the chance for future economic growth, prosperity and ecological health.

1. Focus strategies on aggressive use of water conservation and efficiency measures which will create a “hidden reservoir” of water at a price per gallon significantly less than other options.

Metro Atlanta could save between 130-210 million gallons of water per day by implementing water efficiency and conservation. Permitted Lake Lanier withdrawals equal 178 million gallons per day.

New reservoirs should be a last resort because they seriously impact downstream communities, fish and wildlife, property owners, and the recreational value of our streams, they are expensive, and they take a long time to provide drinking water. Dams can cost $4,000 per 1,000 gallons of capacity, while efficiency measures range from $0.46 to $250 per 1,000 gallons saved or new capacity. Before “Capture” and “Control” strategies are pursued, aggressive use of water conservation should be pursued first.

According to American Rivers and their “Hidden Reservoir” report: • Metro Atlanta could save up to $700 million by pursuing water efficiency

to secure water supply as compared to building new dams. • This water savings could provide water for 790,000 to 1,280,000 new

residents.

Page 110

• Metro Atlanta communities consume, on average, 89 gallons per capita per day (gpcd). A conserving household consumes 45.2 gpcd. Brisbane, Australia consumes 36 gpcd with the same high quality of life as Metro Atlanta.

• New York City completed the world’s largest toilet replacement program during 1994-1997 (three years) resulting in 70-90 MGD of savings through the replacement of 1.3 million toilets. The program saved NYC over $200 million by deferring expansion of supply and wastewater infrastructure.

Here are the numbers on how water conservation and efficiency can meet Metro Atlanta’s water supply needs with 5 proven water efficiency methods:

Low Projectionof Water Saved

HighProjectionof Water Saved

Stop Leaks in the water utility distribution pipes.117 MGD are lost each day to leaks and unaccounted for uses in Metro Atlanta

29.34 58.68

Price water to encourage efficient use. Up to 22% decrease in consumption is possible through conservation pricing.

53.79 78.89

Meter all uses to measure water consumption. Most multi-family/commercial includes water costs in monthly rent/fees thereby eliminating market signals to conserve.A 15% savings can be secured through this policy alone.

5.87 9.39

Retrofit all buildings with water efficient fixtures.Up to 35% decrease in water use possible through retrofits alone.

36.35 54.52

Landscape to minimize waste.On average 30% of household drinking water is used to water lawns, tree, and shrubs. On average 50% of that water is wasted. At least 25% savings is possible through proven programs.

8.41 12.62

Total MGD Saved * Source: American Rivers

133.76 MGD 214.10 MGD

2. Make reauthorization and reallocation of the water from Lake Lanier a central component of future water supply plans.

We recommend the Task Force coordinate its efforts with the other prongs of the Governor’s response strategy to negotiate with Florida and Alabama and gain Congressional reallocation and reauthorization of Lake Lanier. If Metro Atlanta commits to using its water resources as efficiently as possible, gaining authorization of Lake Lanier to use for water supply purposes is an economical and environmentally sound path to pursue. The authorization should also provide for healthy downstream flows, require efficient use of the resource, and ensure that water supply not be prioritized over other authorized uses.

Page 111

3. Use water demand projections that realistically reflect Metro-Atlanta’s future water needs.

The Metropolitan North Georgia Water Planning District water demand projections do not plan for reasonable decreases in per capita consumption or overall consumption. The Pacific Institute criticized the Metro District’s population and demand projections for being over-stated. These same demand projections were used to determine the gap in water supply for 2012.

4. Not deprive downstream communities of the chance for future economic growth, prosperity and ecological health.

The Task Force should be keenly aware of how they make decisions and how their decisions will affect the rest of the state because it is perceived as heavily weighted toward Metro Atlanta interests and is making decisions in meetings that are closed to the public.

Solutions to Metro Atlanta’s water supply needs must protect the water supplies of downstream communities, protect taxpayers from costly and unnecessary water supply projects and protect the health of our rivers, fisheries and wildlife.

Metro Atlanta has a significant opportunity to meet this challenge with inventive, progressive, cost-effective, and timely strategies like Seattle and Boston have, and also like our own Cobb and DeKalb counties have. We urge you to pursue those strategies too.

Thank you again for this opportunity to provide recommendations.

Sincerely,

April Ingle, Executive Director

Page 112

GEORGIA FARM BUREAU WATER POLICY HIGHLIGHTS

We urge farmer representationGeorgia’s river basins have differing characteristics, and decisions should be made on a regional basis by the stakeholders in each particular region.Farmers should be represented and hold seats on all committees, boards, and councils that impact the use of water in Georgia.

We believe the right to use water is a private property right subject to state regulation only to the extent necessary to protect downstream users.

Landowners have the basic right to use water located on (or under) their property. We oppose assertions that all citizens have an equal right to use water located on private property.If the right to use water is restricted by the state, landowners should be compensated for the loss.We oppose lowering the 100,000 gallons/day threshold for requiring agriculturalwithdrawal permits.

Farmers should have priority during times of drought.We oppose any change to OCGA 12-5-102 which states that “during emergency periods of water shortage, the director shall give first priority to providing water for human consumption and second priority to farm use.”Of all stakeholders, farmers are most at risk. Without timely access to irrigation water, farmers lose their total investment.Once basic human needs are met, farmers should have priority for water use.Irrigation costs are effective incentives for farmers to conserve. Farmers will regulatethemselves because of high fuel and electricity costs.Agriculture is Georgia’s largest industry; damage to agriculture adversely affects the economy of the entire state.

We support all reasonable avenues for solving our water needs.Water conservation incentives should be enacted or broadened that would encourage landowners to voluntarily reduce water usage.Ways to increase our water supply should become a priority equal to conservation. Wemust find effective ways to bring new reservoirs into use, whether it be streamlining the process or utilizing different types of reservoirs (off stream reservoirs, increasing capacity of existing reservoirs, more farm ponds, aquifer storage & recovery, desalination, etc.)We support the use of existing reservoirs for electric power generation, irrigation,navigation, flood control, and municipal water supplies. We oppose releases of water that are not in accord with those uses.

We support reasonable water transfers.We support limitations on inter-basin and intra-basin transfers of water to maintain adequate supplies for agriculture.The needs of donor regions and basins must be protected.

The state should fund water planning entities.Public funding sources must be utilized to meet the data collection and staff needs associated with the development, implementation, and ongoing management of the water plan.We oppose the creation of huge bureaucracies to manage Georgia’s water, and water planning entities should not have taxing authority.

November 25, 2009

Page 116

The Georgia Water Coalition’s Essential Steps to Ensure Sustainable Water Supply for Metro Atlanta

• Water must remain a public resource in Georgia, regardless of where we ultimately get

additional supply.

• Any water management strategy for metro Atlanta must not deprive downstream communities of the chance for future economic growth and prosperity.

• Water management must be adaptive, based on sound science to ensure water withdrawals are timed and distributed to meet all instream flow and consumptive needs while allowing for uncertainty in the face of droughts, floods, and climate change.

• The Georgia Water Coalition supports the aggressive use of water conservation first, which will create a hidden reservoir of water at a price per gallon significantly less than that of constructing new reservoirs.

• Aggressive conservation measures are those above and beyond those included in the Metropolitan North Georgia Water Planning District’s regional water plans, including funding to fix leaking pipes and aging infrastructure, requiring low impact development techniques, toilet retrofits, submetering, etc., and should include interim and final deadlines to make sure that goals are reached. The Metro District can save millions of gallons of water, create new jobs and spend less money in the long term by implementing these measures now.

• The Georgia Water Coalition is ready to work with state and federal agencies to secure funding necessary to repair aging infrastructure as well as support other aggressive conservation measures.

• The Georgia Water Coalition supports maximizing the use of existing water supply

reservoirs, particularly Lake Lanier and Lake Allatoona.

• The cheapest and most readily available sources of water are Lake Lanier and Lake Allatoona. Both must be controlled in a way that insures healthy downstream flows and minimizes withdrawal needs by maximizing both water conservation and water and energy efficiency.

• The Georgia Water Coalition is willing to offer whatever assistance is needed to secure an agreement between the Governors or through Congress that assures metro Atlanta the continued use of Lakes Lanier and Allatoona at sustainable withdrawal levels.

Page 127

• We must explore the feasibility of converting existing reservoirs built for other purposes to serve in part or in full as water supply sources. As part of a comprehensive assessment of these existing sources, quarries should also be explored as potential water storage facilities.

• Until the above options have been fully exhausted, new reservoirs, aquifer storage and

recovery, desalinization, and interbasin transfers should not be pursued. All are expensive, time-intensive, and/or untested, and they are potentially detrimental to aquatic ecosystems and downstream users.

• New reservoirs and other supply sources will saddle state and local economies with massive debt in an already difficult economic climate.

• New reservoirs and other supply sources cannot be constructed by the July 2012 deadline set by Judge Magnuson, even in the absence of any downstream or environmental opposition.

• In order to unite all Georgians in a common water management strategy, we must codify

the statewide water plan’s suggestions for interbasin transfers and reservoirs into statute, so that these suggestions become binding principles that will govern future water supply proposals.

Page 128

The WaterOptimizer makes the

Designed by water conservation professionals, the WaterOptimizer is a smart system that allows utilities better control over water resource use. It allows home or business owners to use the water they need, but no more.

The WaterOptimizer is designed for use by Regional Water Utilities and individual homeowners to monitor conditions in the water distribution system through custom designed software.

A seamless blend of new and tested technologies ensures that the system works whether someone is home or not.

The WaterOptimizer provides a real management optionFor Water Managers: The WaterOptimizer allows water managers to eliminate peaks and manage community supplies, while it provides users all the water they need for landscape maintenance.

Residents and Businesses: The WaterOptimizer connects to residential or individual irrigation systems, replacing any existing controller. Although connection is voluntary, local water utilities can then manage the system by allowing individual systems to operate, or by re-directing irrigation to times when there is less demand.

Regardless of the user, the WaterOptmizer protects system water pressure, provides the resource where it’s needed. When it’s not needed, it’s saved for another day.

The WaterOptimizer operates in 6 ways

12

3

4

56

WeatherAs the weather changes, the WaterOptimizer responds. If it’s raining, the irrigation system simply will not activate.

SensorEach system has moisture sensors located throughout the property. It’s easy to set a moisture level for the zone. When the moisture level is reached, the system moves to the next zone, or simply doesn’t activate.

Reclaimed Water (Force-on)Beyond conventional systems, the WaterOptimizer can be applied to the reclaimed water system. With the WaterOptimizer, utilities can manage reclaimed water like the valuable resource it is.

PressureThe WaterOptimizer monitors pressure in the system. If the system’s water pressure is too low, the WaterOptimizer automatically initiates a program to manage irrigation (a nonessential use) so that essential needs are met. Once pressure is restored, the irrigation system will continue where it left off.

Fire SupportIn case of emergency, the fire department can interrupt irrigation to increase water pressure—with a phone call.

Emergencies (optional)During emergencies like floods, hurricanes, or tornados, this system has the capability to sound an audible alarm that will alert citizens and improve emergency service response time.

www.Water-Optimizer.com

Regional WaterUtility Central

Control

Homeowner Irrigation

2-Way Communication

WeatherStation

(Optional)MoistureSensor

(Optional)

PressureMonitoring(Optional)

The WaterOptimizer provides the water that’s neededEvery water manager knows that anywhere from 50 – 75 percent of water demand goes to irrigation. In most cases, that’s far more than is needed. This use of water for outdoor irrigation combined with an increase of in-ground irrigation systems has led to increased water waste.

The Water Optimizer system allows homeowners and water managers to work together to provide more responsive, better-focused irrigation to home and business owners, and allows better monitoring of water use by utilities.

It’s OK to irrigate.Page 148

REGIONAL WATER ENTITYCONCEPT

BACKGROUNDOne of the major issues associated with meeting the potential water shortage challenge created by Judge Magnuson’s ruling is the efficient and timely access to all available permitted capacity and the re-allocation of this surplus capacity, wherever it might exist.

An associated challenge is the identification of suitable funding sources necessary to enable timely and cost effective implementation of all priority conservation and capture options that will meet not only the short-term goal of filling the potential gap that would arise, should Judge Magnuson’s ruling take effect, but also long-term water infrastructure objectives that provide for ongoing community and industry growth across all of Georgia.

PROPOSALIt is proposed to establish a Regional Water Entity with powers and authorities that could include:

taking ownership and full control of unused water permits across the Metropolitan North Georgia Water Planning District;re-allocating water permits to ensure timely access to all available permitted resources;consolidating, by purchasing, the assets of existing water utilities and accept the bonding,financial and operational obligations associated with the ownership and management these enterprises;applying legislated mandates that would compel all water utilities to maximize water conservation;setting all fixed and variable water supply rates; andissuing water bonds to fund future water infrastructure requirements across the Metropolitan North Georgia Water Planning District as required.

OUTCOMESone entity to plan, manage, own and deliver water services across the Metropolitan North Georgia Water Planning District;immediate access to all surplus permitted capacity for re-allocation to areas of shortfall;efficiencies of scale and scope; anddistrict-wide bonding capacity is enhanced.

NEXT STEPSConduct a feasibility study into the formation of a Regional Water Entity.

Page 154

RESOLUTION

BY THE SUWANEE-SATILLA WATER COUNCIL OF THE STATE OF GEORGIA

FOR THE HONORABLE SONNY PERDUE, GOVERNOR OF STATE OF GEORGIA

Whereas, the state of Georgia is blessed with many natural resources governed by both the State and the regions they occupy – the mountains of North Georgia, the beaches and marshlands of the Atlantic coast, and the fruitful plains of South Georgia; and

Whereas, the basic desire of all concerned is to continue the State’s vibrant growth while continuing to manage its abundant natural resources properly; and

Whereas, the resources of the State should remain in the locations originally established by nature, and the water resources should remain in the river basins defined by the various watersheds around the state; and

Whereas, interbasin transfers fundamentally and irreversibly alter the natural flows in our rivers and streams, and can harm the long-term prosperity and quality of life in the basin of origin, species dependent upon specific water flows and quality, and downstream communities and economies that depend upon flows for drinking water, recreation, navigation, agribusiness, industry and economic growth; and

Whereas, artificial redistribution of natural resource wealth is not in keeping with the basic principles of free enterprise;

Now, therefore, we resolve: the Suwannee-Satilla Water Planning Council desires that theAdministration through EPD place a moratorium on establishment of any interbasin transfers under current law, inside or outside of the MNGWMD, until the water planning process that we are laboring through, a process authorized by the General Assembly and signed by the Governor in 2008, is complete.

Attest __________________________________________________________

Chairman, Suwannee-Satilla Water Council, State of Georgia

With copies provided to: The Honorable Lt. Governor Casey Cagle

The Honorable House Speaker Glenn Richardson

Commissioner of Natural Resources Chris Clark

Director of EPD Alan Barnes

Members of the Georgia Senate

Page 158

Members of the Georgia House of Representatives

Page 159

Report Date: 5/11/2009 Full Technical SWAT Performance Report at www.irrigation.org

6540 Arlington Boulevard Tel: 703.536.7080 Falls Church, VA 22042 www.irrigation.org

Smart Water Application Technologies (SWAT) Performance Report Testing Agency: Center for Irrigation Technology www.californiawater.org Product: WaterOptimizer Product Type: Climatologically Based Controller Product Description: Tested in its weather-based mode, the WaterOptimizer adjusts runtimes with an optional wireless radio to a web portal service or local ET data (ex. CIMIS). The controller offers an optional soil moisture sensor-based mode (not tested; SWAT testing not currently available). SWAT Protocol*: Turf and Landscape Equipment Climatologically Based Controllers 8th Draft Testing Protocol (Sept. 2008) The concept of climatologically controlling irrigation systems has an extensive history of scientific study and documentation. The objective of this protocol is to evaluate how well current commercial technology has integrated the scientific data into a practical system that meets the agronomic needs of turf and landscape plants. The evaluation is accomplished by creating a virtual landscape subjected to a representative climate to evaluate the ability of individual controllers to adequately and efficiently irrigate that landscape. After initial programming and calibration the controller is expected to perform without further intervention during the test period. Performance results indicate to what degree the controller maintained root zone moistures within an acceptable range. If moisture levels are maintained without deficit, it can be assumed the crop growth and quality will be adequate. If moisture levels are maintained without excess it can be assumed that scheduling is efficient.

*All SWAT protocol may be viewed at www.irrigation.org

WaterOptimizer SWAT Performance Summary Irrigation Adequacy Irrigation Excess Minimum of 6 test zones: 100% Minimum of 6 test zones: 0%

Maximum of 6 test zones: 0% Mean/Average of 6 test zones: 0%

Maximum of 6 test zones: 100% Mean/Average of 6 test zones: 100%Irrigation Adequacy represents how well irrigation met the needs of the plant material. This reflects the percentage of required water for turf or plant material supplied by rainfall and controller-scheduled irrigations. Research suggests that if this value is between 80% and 100%, the acceptable quality of vegetation will be maintained.

Irrigation Excess represents how much irrigation water was applied beyond the needs of the plant material. This reflects the percentage of water applied in excess of 100% of required water according to data from CIMIS station #84 Browns Valley, Yuba during the test period.

Product Detail Supplied by Manufacturer WaterOptimizer www.water-optimizer.comInstallation Data Source Data

LinkInitialPurchase

AdditionalHardware

Additional Fees

Replace existing controller or install on a new system.

SWAT tested with wireless Internet link to CIMIS weather station #84. Various weather stations or web portal service available.

2-way wireless radio using ZigBee technology

Purchase price includes system to control up to 12 zones

None Monthly/annual fee for web portal service

Additional Features Zones Time of Day Day of Week Other If Data Link is

DiscontinuedBase controls up to 12 zones, expandable to 48.

Capable of restricting watering during selected time of day.

Capable of restricting watering days by selection or interval.

Modes operate with or without pulse (cycle-soak) Four automatic programs with up to four start times Remote over-the-air firmware/program updates Enclosure designed for indoor or outdoor installations Sensor-based controller mode included

If ET link is discontinued, it may be used as a standard irrigation controller.

Page 160

THE NATURE CONSERVANCYWATER CONSERVATION PRINCIPLES AND PRACTICES

1. Water is, and must remain, a public resource that requires thoughtful management to preserve it for current and future needs.

2. Water policy decisions must be based on accurately determining current and future needs and driven by objective, measurable science.

3. Any water management strategy for metro Atlanta must ensure downstream communities of guaranteed in-stream flows so as not to deprive them of future economic prosperity. Reauthorization of Lake Lanier, expansion of existing reservoirs, and using existing, but abandoned quarries are all techniques that keep in place current flow standards.

4. The Nature Conservancy (TNC) considers the current Statewide Water Management planning process one of the best examples of stakeholder water planning in the country. The Regional Water Councils setup through this process should continue to serve in their current format because any policy decisions affecting metro Atlanta’s water usage have upstream and downstream implications. Utilizing these Councils, (appointed in part by the Governor) and the Science and Engineering Advisory Panel (an EPD appointed, nationally recognized scientists) not only ensures that policy decisions have statewide “sounding boards” and sound scientific footing, but it demonstrates to the federal government and the states of Alabama and Florida that others outside the metro Atlanta community are being heard.

The two specific recommendations that affect upstream and downstream users outside metro Atlanta are the contraction of new reservoirs and inter-basin transfers. The Nature Conservancy specifically recommends the following:

New Reservoirs – cost, political viability, and timeframe are all critical factors that should make new reservoirs the option of last resort. Additionally, the fact there are major consumptive losses in evaporation and the need to move the water to Atlanta makes this an inefficient process.Inter-Basin Transfers - Georgia should not invest in expensive, time consuming water capture and control policies. Moving water around does not solve the inherent problem AND it denies economic development opportunities to those communities who lose water in a transfer.

5. Georgians should expect credible, cost-effective, politically viable, and timely solutions to current and future water supply issues.

Water conservation is a goal that all parties interested in solving Georgia’s water dilemma can agree on – yet methods to capture this goal range from building new reservoirs to implementing water efficiency measures. All potential solutions have different costs, timelines, effectiveness, and political viability. GA EPD and CH2MHILL estimated that reservoir construction can cost $4,000 per 1,000 gallons captured – and this does not take into account ongoing maintenance and operations costs. In contrast, various water efficiency measures can cost between $0.46 and $250 per 1,000 gallons saved. Controls can (and will) be built into whichever solution, or variety of solutions, is adopted. For example, dam operation manuals control the release of water while tax incentives and other public policy prescriptions can control water efficiency goals.

While there are many examples of local governments across the country including those in Georgia, realizing water savings through conservation, The Nature Conservancy has “on

Page 166

the ground” experience working with the Flint River Soil and Water District and the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) to engage the agricultural community in southwest Georgia along the Flint River in an effort to conserve water through new, efficient technologies. Farmers, incentivized through Farm Bill cost-share programs and realized savings on water withdrawal costs, are changing their behavior which is conserving more water. Drawing on our experience in southwest Georgia, TNC recommends the following conservation tools – and we’ve provided the context that parallels our agricultural work with each specific recommendation.

A. REDUCE WATER LOSS BY FIXING LEAKS IN DISTRIBUTION PIPES AND RETROFITTING BUILDINGS WITH WATER EFFICIENT FIXTURES.

LOWER FLINTY EXAMPLE:1) Mechanical – redesigning the structural components of existing irrigation systems to

improve efficiency, i.e. low pressure drop nozzle retrofits. Water savings are achieved by: 1) improving uniformity of the irrigation systems to more than 80-% - this is simply a “leak check”; 2) applying irrigation nearer to the crop reducing evaporation and wind drift; and 3) installing an end gun shut off when applicable to keep irrigation inside field boundaries

YIELD: 22.5% in water savings per center pivot unit or approximately 6 million gallons annually.

COST: $10,000 per system

TIMING: Since 2003, 20% of farmers in 27 counties of southwest GA have completed which equals approximately 1,000 center pivot units.

B. METERING ALL WATER USES SO INDIVIDUAL ACCOUNTABILITY IS ENCOURAGED. REAL TIME INFORMATION MODIFIES BEHAVIOR

LOWER FLINT EXAMPLE:2) Technological – Utilizing advanced technology applications on the farm to increase

accuracy, efficiency and effectiveness of irrigation, i.e. variable rate irrigation and remote soil moisture monitoring. Variable rate irrigation (VRI) is a precision agriculture tool that conserves both water and soil while improving crop yields by mapping crop acres and defining irrigation patterns according to soil types, slope and hydrology. Remote soilmoisture monitoring employs soil moisture sensors, temperature probes and rain gauges to record field conditions and upload ‘real-time’ data to the internet via a wireless broadband network, cell carrier or satellite system.

3)YIELD: 17% per center pivot unit for VRI and 17% for remote soil moisture monitoring. The savings equal 4.5 million for both practices or 9 million a year for both – per center pivot.

COST: $16,500 per unit for VRI. $3,500 for remote soil monitoring.

TIMING: 20 units currently online; 30 additional units will be active by 2010

Page 167

C. OUTDOOR LANDSCAPING INCENTIVES AND RULES IN ORDER TO MINIMIZE WATER WASTE SUCH AS A DAYTIME BAN ON OUTDOOR WATERING.

LOWER FLINT EXAMPLE:

4) Ecological – Changing the way farmers manage agricultural fields so that naturally occurring processes (ecosystem services) can replace production inputs such as water, fuel, fertilizers and pesticides, i.e. sod based rotation.Sod based rotation incorporates

Sod based rotation incorporates rotations of a perennial warm season grass into a conservation tillage based row cropping system. The primary benefit of this practice is an increase in soil organic matter at a rate of .1% per year which yields improved water retention and soil health, supports a forty fold increase in crop roots and sequesters carbon.

YIELD: Conservation tillage creates a 17% in water savings annually or 4.5 million gallons per center pivot unit. Sod based rotation can reduce water use further by an additional 40% or 10.5 million gallons.

COST: $400/acre

TIMING: 100,000 acres in conservation tillage through NRCS – 200 acres on an EPA testsite in sod based rotation.

NOTE:All of these statistics are based on a 100-acre average field size in Georgia. Water is applied by acre/inch. 1 acre inch of water = 27,154 gallons. 1 complete pass of a center pivot system uses 2.7 million gallons of water. The number of passes made annually average 10 – so each year on average 1 center pivot uses 27 million gallons of water.

ADDITIONAL BENEFITS

ECONOMICAL: Demonstrating how water conservation improvise the farm economy by reducing agricultural inputs. For example, a 15-20% reduction in irrigation applications equates to a 15-20% reduction in energy costs. Farmers calculate cost on a per acre basis; if a conservation practice can reduce per acre expenses while sustaining or even improving crop yields, the farmer profits even if commodity prices stagnate. Input reduction via precisionagriculture technology or ecosystem services is good business.

SOCIAL: The establishment of a rural broadband network that provides farmers with real time soil and water information – has the ancillary benefit of bringing wireless technology to schools, hospitals, and local governments in the 4 county pilot program area.

ENVIRONMENTAL: Farmers inherently understand the fact that water is a finite resource. Ifprovided the technology, incentives, and education to conserve water – while potentially realizing increased profits over time - they will modify their behavior. By leaving more water in the Flint River all the ecological benefits associated with a healthy river system are realized

Page 168

•

•

•

Page 170

•

•

•

•

•

•

Page 171

FACT SHEET

Contact: Kevin [email protected]/(678) 427-1313

An Advanced Sensor Technology Company

UgMO Saves Water, Saves Money, Saves EarthUgMO is the most advanced, wireless underground monitoring system available today. UgMO’s unique blend of state-of-the-art hardware, intuitive software and world-class agronomic support completely removes the guesswork of when and how much to water and how to manage other related resources like power and soil additives (fertilizers, pesticides, nitrates, etc.).

The system measures precisely how much water is in the soil and communicates that data in real-time, 24/7. UgMO delivers data to turf managers via its robust software platform so that they can make educated decisions on irrigation. UgMO can also communicate directly with irrigation systems to interrupt automated watering practices when irrigation is not needed.

Either way, the result is direct and immediate water conservation with UgMO placing its users at theforefront of environmental stewardship.

State-of-the-Art SystemUgMO’s patent-protected hardware package is compact and non-invasive. Plus, it’s field-proven.

In-Ground Sensors – Wireless subsurface sensors provide highly accurate, real-time data on soil moisture, temperature andsalinity gradients. Sensor nodes are minimally invasive and easy to install (a standard cup cutter does the job) with battery life designed for 4+ years of consistent, uninterrupted service.Above-Ground Radio – Self-contained routers (aka radios) form a wireless mesh network with a one-mile range above ground, unobstructed.Software Anywhere -- UgMO’s software interface displays real-time conditions and provides comprehensive intelligence plus corrective and predictive actions. It’s accessible to UgMO users from any Internet browser on desktops, laptops, smart phones, etc.

Positive ReturnsEnvironmental Benefits – Water and energy savings reach 25% or more. Also reduces phosphate, nitrate and pesticide usage and the overall carbon footprint.Regulatory Benefits: UgMO’s precise data can help meet water mandates and measure compliance; it also create savings that can be applied to contingency planning.

UgMO is AffordableUgMO hardware is a one-time purchase of $250 per sensor. UgMO software intelligence is sold on a subscription basis – the most basic level is approximately $8 per sensor monthly. ???Bottom line: With water savings averaging 25 percent or more, the payback period on UgMO technology can be one year or less.

840 First Avenue Suite 300, King of Prussia, PA 19406 484.690.0570 www.ugmo.com

Page 174

December 8, 2009

Georgia Water Contingency Task ForceThe Office of the GovernorState of Georgia203 State CapitolAtlanta, GA 30334

Submitted via email: [email protected]

Dear Members of the Georgia Water Contingency Task Force,

Southern Alliance for Clean Energy (SACE) submits the following comments concerning the task force’s directive to find a sustainable and cost-effective water supply for the Metro Atlanta region. We are a non-profit organization that works to advance clean energy policy in the Southeast and have members who are concerned about water quality and related environmental problems. Our comments focus solely on the electricity sector and energy issues where we have in-depth expertise.Regarding other topics unrelated to electricity and energy, we generally support the comments submitted in November by the Georgia Water Coalition of which our organization is a member.

The Water-Energy ConnectionGeorgia’s power sector is the largest water user in the state, followed closely by agriculture.iGeorgia’s existing electricity system significantly degrades water quality (e.g. thermal pollution, emission and discharge of harmful chemicals and heavy metals) and reduces water availability for Georgians and our bordering neighbors. Georgia’s existing electricity system already competes for water with other important uses vital to our state’s economy and quality of life: drinking water supply, agriculture, industry, fishing, and recreational opportunities. Several major new power plants proposed for construction in Georgia will compete even more with other uses if approved by the state.

Power plants must have significant water resources continuously and readily available to create and condense steam to power their turbines. Water use refers to the amount of water that is withdrawn from the water body by the power plant. Water consumption refers to the amount of water that the power plant withdraws that is not returned to the water supply source, water that is “lost” or “consumed,” primarily due to evaporation.

Water withdrawals and consumption figures depend heavily on what types of cooling technologies are used. Power plants that use once-through systems (i.e. do not have cooling towers) withdraw and heat very large volumes of water but consume little water because direct evaporation is low. In contrast, “closed cycle system” power plants that use cooling towers do not need to withdraw nearly as much water, but their cooling tower evaporation means a much higher rate of water consumption.Although cooling towers offer certain environmental and engineering advantages over once-throughsystems, they consume a lot of water. In Georgia, some power plants use cooling towers some or all of the time, while others do not.

Page 175

of 5 – SACE Georgia Water Task Force comments

For instance, coal-fired Plant Branch withdraws over a billion gallons of water per day from Lake Sinclair, but consumes a few million gallons of water because of its primary reliance on once-through condenser cooling water and only seasonal use of its cooling tower. Georgia’s nuclear plants Hatch and Vogtle use cooling towers for condensing steam, resulting in less water withdrawn (around 60 million gallons per day) but with a much greater volume of water consumed or lost (between 34 and 43 million gallons per day). This ultimately results in these plants returning less than half of the water withdrawn to the Altamaha and Savannah rivers respectively. With the proposed expansion of Plant Vogtle, more water will be lost as steam from the two existing and two proposed reactors than is currently used by all residents of Atlanta, Augusta, and Savannah combined.ii

Less water used for power generation translates into more water for other life-dependent or life-enhancing uses in the region.

Less Water-Intensive Energy Solutions Exist There is an established link between reduction in electricity use and reduction of water consumed. The Georgia Drought Response Unified Command (DRUC) highlighted the water-energyconnection through its statewide press release in December 2007:

DRUC encourages Georgians to help save water by conserving electricity. Large amounts of water are required to generate electricity. In Georgia, each kilowatt hour (kWh) of electricity production consumes 1.65 gallons of water according to the National Renewable Energy Laboratory.iii To put it in context, the average Georgia household’s electricity use is 1,148 kilowatt hours per month, requiring 1,894 gallons of water to generate.

“One strategy for saving water is to reduce energy consumption,” said Georgia Environmental Facilities Authority (GEFA) Executive Director Chris Clark. “Georgians can help the state through this drought by implementing a few practical energy efficiency measures in their homes. Not only will this help conserve water and energy, it will also help lower their utility bills.” iv

The actual specifics can vary on how a particular river basin in Georgia may benefit from water savings due to improved energy efficiency and fuel switching to less water-intensive energy technologies. Yet, given Georgia’s current overreliance on water-intensive energy supply options,water in the region will be conserved when energy efficiency and water-conserving power supply technologies replace the existing highly water-intensive energy technologies. If a water-intensivecoal fired power plant in Georgia does not have to run at full capacity because there has been a reduction in energy demand through far more effective energy efficiency programs and far more effective fuel switching to less water intensive energy supplies than currently exists, then less water will be required to run that plant and thus less water will be withdrawn from a particular resource. If all electric utilities in Georgia and the surrounding region were to adopt water-conserving rather than water-intensive technologies, the results would be quite significant.

A May 2005 study by ICF, Assessment of Energy Efficiency Potential in Georgia, done for the Georgia Environmental Facilities Authority as they began to craft the state’s first energy strategy, showed that reducing the amount of water required for cooling at power plants could offer

Page 176


significantly more water savings than by water conservation measures implemented by the end-user(e.g. low flow showerheads, among other measures). The study estimated that if moderatelyaggressive electric utility energy efficiency programs were implemented then the power sector could reduce its water consumption by 155 million gallons of water per day (mgd) by 2015.vLooking at all scenarios, the study estimated that water use for cooling purposes at power plants could be reduced by 58-224 mgd by 2010 (had these efforts been implemented after the 2005 study was released) versus 3-10 mgd reductions by implementing various efficiency measures to reduce water use by end users. As the Table 8 from the study shows, substantially greater water savings are estimated to be available in the power sector.

The Task Force should be aware that when comparing types of energy generation, regardless of whether cooling towers are used, nuclear power has higher rates of both water withdrawal and consumption than coal and natural gas and far more than renewables such as wind and solar.vi

Though coal plants are not as water intensive as nuclear reactors, coal is typically the most water intensive choice among fossil fuel power generation options. Good wind resources exist in Georgia, particularly offshore along the coast.vii According to the Department of Energy’s National Renewable Energy Laboratory, developing 1000 MW of wind in Georgia could save 1628 million gallons of water per year.viii Less water-intensive cooling technologies, such as dry cooling, are available but no existing or proposed power plants in Georgia are actively pursuing them.

Individual actions such as use of Energy Star appliances that use less energy and water can also achieve water savings. Energy Star washing machines, for example, require approximately 50% less energy per load and use 30-50% less water than a typical model. This saves water two ways and saves consumers money on both their water and energy bills. The recent report, Water and Watts: Water-Energy Links in the Southeast United States, April 2009 by the World Resources Institute,gives some useful background and has an example on p. 8 of how much energy savings can begained by changing over 1 in 10 inefficient toilets with WaterSense labeled toilets – estimating it could save nearly 25 billion gallons of water annually (enough to meet Charlotte, North Carolina’s entire public water supply needs for nearly eight months). Additionally, it could save residents about $150 million in water bills, and reduce electric power use (needed to treat, pump, and deliver the water) by more than 80 million kilowatt hours (kWh), which is about equal to the annual

Page 177


electricity use for 7,500 homes.ix

Recommendations

Call for aggressive implementation of water-saving energy measures such as energy efficiency and energy conservation and advance less water-intensive electricity supplies such as wind and solar. Ifenergy conservation and fuel switching to water conserving energy supplies were implemented such that reliance on water-intensive new power plants decreased, water resources in the region would also be conserved and available for life-supportive activities as a result.

o In comments we submitted to the Environmental Protection Division earlier this year for the Water Conservation Implementation Plan, we recommended that state agencies conduct energy audits by 2011 and that state agencies should match federal agencies’ goal of 30% total energy reduction by 2015 in all public buildings using FY2003 as a baseline as outlined in the Energy Policy Act of 2005 and Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (see http://www.dsireusa.org/library/includes/incentive2.cfm?Incentive_Code=US02R&State=federal¤tpageid=1&ee=1&re=1). Given the large number of state agencies and the respective facilities located in the Metro Atlanta area alone, this could provide significant water savings to the region given the generally energy-inefficient operation of State of Georgia buildings. For background on supportive policies, please see p. 5 under “Demonstrate leadership with energy efficient public buildings” in the 2009 Water and Watts report mentioned previously.

o Design and adopt utility incentives directed at both water and energy conservation and efficiency to apply within the region, including: incentives outlined in the ICF studies “Assessment of Energy Efficiency Potential in Georgia” and “Strategies for Capturing Georgia’s Energy Efficiency Potential” done for the Georgia Environmental Facilities Authority; prioritization of state spending on energy and water projects, tax credits for the installation of devices that collect rain water in homes, and additional tax free holidays for EnergyStar and WaterSense qualifying appliances. See a recent article at http://www.wneg32.tv/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1645:tax-free-appliances&catid=1:latest-news&Itemid=18 that highlights the water/energy connection and mentions some of these measures.

o Abandon pursuit of desalination. Desalination is an energy-intensive technologyx which, given Georgia’s water-intensive energy infrastructure, means that desalination efforts in Georgia will also be highly water-intensive. This reality alone negates any supposed benefits.

In favor of far more water-conserving energy solutions and cheaper alternatives, halt proposed utility plans to build more coal plants and nuclear reactors that seek to horde even more of Georgia’s scarce water supplies.

o Evaluate proposed energy supply options based on their water impacts. It is critical to recognize and act on the fact that some supply side choices are less water-intensive than others and that electric utilities have clear portfolio choices to bring a combination of supply and demand resources. A utility resource package can be either highly water intensive or highly water conserving or somewhere in the middle, depending on which fuel combinations and technologies are chosen. The State of Georgia must conduct comparative analysis of the water requirements and water impacts of the range of electric generating technologies and policy

Page 178


analysis to enable utility and environmental regulators to make well-informed decisions about new power supply options from a water perspective. All state governments in the region that are struggling with how to more effectively manage their own state’s water resources should be placing very high priority on aggressively building a far more water-efficient electric system. The business-as-usual course that is harming our region’s water resources that Georgia’s electric power sector continues to pursue should not be allowed to continue.

Develop a coordinated campaign to educate the public. Electric utilities are among the largest water users in the state and are proposing new power plants that will be among the highest water consuming power plants that exist. There are less water intensive ways to produce the power Georgians need along with measures that can be implemented to save both energy and water resources.o State agencies – EPD and GEFA – should be involved in addition to environmental and

consumer groups with utility assistance as needed so that all can help communicate the benefits of water and energy efficiency as it relates to consumer behavior and technology adoption. The U.S. EPA has excellent information on both energy efficiency and water efficiency. Information such as the following, as presented on p. 3 of the Water and Watts referred to previously in our comments, is helpful for utility consumers and the public to know: “Southeast power plants withdraw an average of two full bathtubs of water to generate electricity needed to power a refrigerator for a day, losing about four gallons to evaporation in the process.”

If you have any questions or comments on the information SACE has submitted, please do not hesitate to contact me at 912.201.0354 or [email protected].

Sincerely,

Sara Barczak, Program DirectorHigh Risk Energy ChoicesSouthern Alliance for Clean Energy

i Fanning, J.L. 2003. Water Use in Georgia by county for 2000 and water-use trends for 1980-2000. Georgia Geologic Survey Information Circular 106, 176.ii Using 2005 Census figures and with the average per capita daily water use in GA at 75 gallons from surface and ground water sources, http://water.usgs.gov/watuse/tables/dotab.st.html. Water use figures for new reactors from Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Vogtle Early Site Permit Application, Environmental Report, August 2006.iii National Renewable Energy Laboratory, Consumptive Water Use for U.S. Power Production, Paul A. Torcellini, Nicholas Long, & Ronald D. Judkoff, Dec. 2003.iv DRUC Press Release, 12/11/07, at https://www.piersystem.com/go/doc/1619/185714/.v Access the report at http://www.gefa.org/Index.aspx?page=347, scroll down to “Air Quality” and for the report “Assessment of Energy Efficiency Potential in Georgia.” See p. 5-3 (or section 5.2. Impacts on Water Consumption).vi Hoffmann, J., S. Forbes, T. Feeley. U.S. DOE, Estimating Freshwater Needs to Meet 2025 Electrical Generating Capacity Forecasts, June 2004 and U.S. DOE, Energy Demands on Water Resources, Report to Congress on the Interdependency on Energy and Water, December 2006.vii U.S. DOE, Energy Demands on Water Resources, Report to Congress on the Interdependency of Energy and Water, December 2006.viii National Renewable Energy Lab, Economic Benefits, Carbon Dioxide (CO2) Emissions Reductions, and Water Conservation Benefits from 1,000 Megawatts (MW) of New Wind Power in Georgia, June 2008. 300 MW land based and 700 MW offshore.ix Access the report at http://www.rivernetwork.org/blog/7/2009/05/20/watts-and-water-new-report-water-energy-nexus-southeast.x DOE, Energy Demands on Water Resources, Report to Congress on the Interdependency on Energy and Water, December 2006, p. 46.

Page 179

Mac, Katie, Nels and Lonice--

Thanks very much for making time for our meeting this morning. We appreciate the opportunity to give you feedback and input. You have done an excellent job of packaging a lot of information and we generally agree with your main points.

Coming out of that meeting, we summarized the most critical points that we want you to hear from us:

1. THE GAP SHOULD BE PRESENTED AS A RANGE AND IS LIKELY BIGGER THAN 250 MGD. The analysis assumes that 230 mgd can be withdrawn from the river. This is not a safe assumption and it may even be misleading. The right number could be considerably less. There is no reason to credit 230 mgd even as a starting point for this analysis. The judge pulled this number from a document written in 1974 that included numerous outdated assumptions. 230 mgd is not guarantee by the Order—all that is guaranteed is that there will be no lake withdrawals (save 10 mgd) and that off-peak releases will be 600 cfs. We have asked Hydrologics to prepare a reasonable estimate of the water available to the Metro area assuming Buford is operated in accordance with the Order and will send that to you when we get it (we hope this afternoon). One way or the other, the “gap” should be presented as a range.

2. With regard to the "indirect potable reuse" option:

a. The consensus of the water managers is that the costs for the big pipeline project are significantly understated. George Barnes and the City of Atlanta looked hard at a similar, but different, project several years ago. George feels that the project, whether piping or tunnel, either one, would cost about $5-6 billion.

b. We suggest another name for the project, such as "lower to upper basin transfer." We don't want to focus the attention on the indirect potable reuse aspects--we are already doing that, on a large scale. What this project does is transport water from below Atlanta up to the head of the region, and the name should reflect that.

3. Cedar Creek needs to be taken off the list of potential water transfer options.

4. We think the issue with Morgan Falls is that "safe yield" is not the right point of comparison. That concept is not relevant to a reregulation project. The result is to understate the potential value of this alternative by a wide margin. We suggest you remove Morgan Falls from the chart that ranks projects by yield and discuss it on a different slide—potentially with other projects designed to skim peaking releases from Buford Dam. Lewis has worked up some information and discussion, which is attached, to demonstrate this point. We understand it presents significant environmental and social costs, but so does every other option. We want to ensure that the benefits of Morgan Falls dredging are understood and on the table when the priorities are determined.

Page 180

5. The timelines are probably too optimistic. On the lower to upper basin transfer project, it would be unlikely to get such a massive multi-jurisdictional project in place by 2020. It certainly cannot be do in about 4 years, as shown on Slide 21 in the pre-read materials. That is the most glaring example, but we think the timeline on other projects, such as reservoirs, is not realistic.

6. We suggest that you have some additional discussion of the environmental consequences of the various options, taking a more nuanced view than that of the environmental groups, and also making the irrefutable point that reallocation of Lake Lanier is the best option from an environmental perspective. We are working on that and will send you something as soon as possible.

Page 181



Finally, Water WorksStandard irrigation controls use preset irrigation times, which don’t take into account local irrigation restrictions or rainfall. Additionally, they don’t take into account the homeowners’ knowledge of the irrigation system.

The WaterOptimizer uses state of the art moisture sensors tested in both the laboratory and the field. Forget zone irrigation, users can irrigate according to the needs of the plants or sod – needs that are identified by this smart irrigation control system. And, if interrupted for demand control, the Water Optimizer picks up where it left off, it doesn’t “reset” like conventional irrigation systems.

Using the WaterOptimizer to manage heavy users, utilities can substantially reduce peak water requirements, delaying the need for expensive alternative supplies. Some utilities may offer rebates, free installation and equipment maintenance to homeowners to support voluntary participation.

Homeowners that use the WaterOptimizer will see lower monthly water bills and landscape that gets all the water it needs, but no more.

Homeowners may also see a more attractive lawn! The WaterOptimizer will deliver the proper amount of water to your lawn and garden, resulting in optimum growing conditions. Homeowners will see a significant reduction in weeds resulting from overwatering and soggy plant beds.

The WaterOptimizer can be locally controlled, allowing homeowners to override the utility. But given the results and cost savings, they are far more likely to maximize its use.

By limiting peak day usage, utilities and users can save and conserve a

valuable resource.

Finally, Water Works!The WaterOptimizer is a real water

management alternative that provides

better, more precise use of a limited

resource. Water is applied when and

where it’s needed and only in the amount

that’s needed. Efficient use of existing

water supplies delays the need to

develop costly alternatives. In the

process, the public, the utility and

individual homeowners all save money.

It’s a new approach to resource

management and conservation.

Austin TEXAS

Pinellas County FLORIDA

Tarpon Springs FLORIDA

Salt Lake City UTAH

Our Locations Austin, Texas

Dallas, Texas

Jacksonville, Florida

Sarasota, Florida

Tampa, Florida

Miami, Florida

The WaterOptimizer makes the

Designed by water conservation professionals, the WaterOptimizer is a smart system that allows utilities better control over water resource use. It allows home or business owners to use the water they need, but no more.

The WaterOptimizer is designed for use by Regional Water Utilities and individual homeowners to monitor conditions in the water distribution system through custom designed software.

A seamless blend of new and tested technologies ensures that the system works whether someone is home or not.

The WaterOptimizer provides a real management optionFor Water Managers: The WaterOptimizer allows water managers to eliminate peaks and manage community supplies, while it provides users all the water they need for landscape maintenance.

Residents and Businesses: The WaterOptimizer connects to residential or individual irrigation systems, replacing any existing controller. Although connection is voluntary, local water utilities can then manage the system by allowing individual systems to operate, or by re-directing irrigation to times when there is less demand.

Regardless of the user, the WaterOptmizer protects system water pressure, provides the resource where it’s needed. When it’s not needed, it’s saved for another day.

The WaterOptimizer operates in 6 ways

12

3

4

56

WeatherAs the weather changes, the WaterOptimizer responds. If it’s raining, the irrigation system simply will not activate.

SensorEach system has moisture sensors located throughout the property. It’s easy to set a moisture level for the zone. When the moisture level is reached, the system moves to the next zone, or simply doesn’t activate.

Reclaimed Water (Force-on)Beyond conventional systems, the WaterOptimizer can be applied to the reclaimed water system. With the WaterOptimizer, utilities can manage reclaimed water like the valuable resource it is.

PressureThe WaterOptimizer monitors pressure in the system. If the system’s water pressure is too low, the WaterOptimizer automatically initiates a program to manage irrigation (a nonessential use) so that essential needs are met. Once pressure is restored, the irrigation system will continue where it left off.

Fire SupportIn case of emergency, the fire department can interrupt irrigation to increase water pressure—with a phone call.

Emergencies (optional)During emergencies like floods, hurricanes, or tornados, this system has the capability to sound an audible alarm that will alert citizens and improve emergency service response time.


Regional WaterUtility Central

Control

Homeowner Irrigation

2-Way Communication

WeatherStation

(Optional)MoistureSensor

(Optional)

PressureMonitoring(Optional)

The WaterOptimizer provides the water that’s neededEvery water manager knows that anywhere from 50 – 75 percent of water demand goes to irrigation. In most cases, that’s far more than is needed. This use of water for outdoor irrigation combined with an increase of in-ground irrigation systems has led to increased water waste.

The Water Optimizer system allows homeowners and water managers to work together to provide more responsive, better-focused irrigation to home and business owners, and allows better monitoring of water use by utilities.

It’s OK to irrigate.

CALL (866) 880-4030 FOR MORE INFORMATION.

Just made law, Chapter 373.62 creates new options for CDD’s, HOA’s, Water Authorities, Districts, managers and local governments throughout Florida.

By employing “smart irrigation technology” entire communities can receive a variance from irrigation restrictions.

Our system features:

Internet based monitoring and control

Moisture sensors

Precision lawn management

Save Water

Save Money

Irrigate up to 7 days per week

ADVERTORIAL

Technology rules!

Show me the savings!

The WaterOptimizer™ is user-friendly.

But there’s more

Learn More

Make Your Own Irrigation Rules!

The WaterOptimizer™ is a smart irrigation system that meets the requirements of this legislation and saves a significant amount of water.

Georgia Water Task Force Final Report

Documents

Transcript of Georgia Water Task Force Final Report