Most see new water policy as failing south/coastal Georgia

By SANDY PHARR | The Darien News

The Georgia General Assembly passed the first-ever statewide water management plan in January, but the environmental community sees no cause to beat the drum.

"This is not a move forward," said executive director of Altamaha Riverkeeper, Deborah Sheppard, noting that it seems to be nothing more than a plan to make a plan.

"It will be used as an excuse to be able to say that we've taken care of our water problems," she said. "But in fact, it does nothing to resolve the problems. It has no teeth and is unenforceable."

Sheppard believes that legislators were reacting to a 2004 state law, which set a deadline of January 2008 to approve a water management plan that would look at how much water is available and how much can be used without depleting the resource. It is needed to protect the state's waters from overuse, deal with the drought, provide guidelines for growth and help solve the "water war" problems with Alabama and Florida.

Gov. Sonny Perdue has budgeted $11 million to get the management plan off the ground, beginning with three years of assessments to measure Georgia's water quality and quantity, including the supply and demand.

Historically, the state Environmental Protection Division (EPD) has made the decision about how much water can be pulled out of rivers, lakes and underground aquifers, but the new plan creates 11 water planning districts, and most cover several river basins.

State Sen. Jeff Chapman is critical of the fact that these districts are to be managed by boards composed of 25 members appointed by the governor, lieutenant governor and speaker of the House.

"Hand-picking these top-down appointments is simply micromanagement by the state," said Sen. Chapman, who has always supported the role of local government.

"Elected officials at the local level have a vested interest in their districts and are better suited to choose the members who should sit on the areas' water policy councils," he said. "At the very least, local legislative delegations should have some say in of these council members."

What rubs environmentalists the wrong way is that the new plan designates that lines be drawn to reflect economic development regions and political districts, said Sheppard, who contends that the lines should be drawn along natural river basins.

The water-planning boundary lines not only combine different watersheds, but separate the northern districts that control the headwaters of the Altamaha, Satilla, Ogeechee and Savannah rivers, Sen. Chapman pointed out.

"To divide downstream and upstream users so they are sitting on completely different councils is unwise," he said. "Water planning districts should be drawn along watershed boundaries in order to protect our rivers and coastal marshes from overuse by upstream users."

Chapman believes that the plan does very little to prevent the 16-county metro Atlanta area from grabbing more than its fair share of water from the rest of the state. Currently, the plan is just a resolution being considered in the Georgia General Assembly.

"Once it is signed by the governor, the state Environmental Protection Division will control the implementation of the statewide water plan," said Chapman, who contends that the resulting water districts will not have the same legal standing already provided by law to the Metro North Georgia Water Planning District.

"All other water districts will become legally subordinated to the Metro Planning District, since it already includes major portions of five of Georgia's six key river basins," he said. "Every water district in the state should be on equal legal footing."

The proposed plan serves only to further metro Atlanta's growth industry, said Sheppard, noting that this move puts the Altamaha River in a perilous situation if the supply of freshwater flow from the north dries up.

"Fresh water is essential to marine life and the coastal ecosystem," said Sheppard, explaining that many types of marine animals can only thrive in brackish water, where fresh river water mixes with salty sea water. Shrimpers, crabbers and other fishermen depend on a healthy flow of fresh water for their livelihoods, Sheppard pointed out.

"New reservoirs up north could negatively impact the amount of water that reaches the coast," she said. "The fishing industry and economic growth could be harmed significantly." Sen. Chapman agreed.

"The productivity of our shrimp catch and some of our fisheries are dependent on freshwater flow into our marshes," he said. "Interbasin water transfers pose considerable risk, and the resolution offers no option for legislative oversight."

Interbasin water transfers mean that water from one watershed can be pulled out to benefit another watershed.

"While the statewide plan offered some assurances, I am unconvinced that the needs of coastal Georgia would stack up well against the needs of metro Atlanta," he said.

For these reasons, Sen. Chapman voted against the water management plan on Jan. 18, when the Senate approved the resolution 39-12.

It was also approved in the House by a vote of 131-37, and Rep. Roger Lane voted in the majority.

"It's not a perfect plan," he said. "But, it's better than what we have now."

What we have now is basically no plan at all, he said. The resolution, approved overwhelmingly in the General Assembly, provides for three years of evaluation and study so that a good, solid water management plan can be developed, he explained.

"This is just the beginning," he said. "There will be many more bills coming out on this issue, and we want everybody's input as we move the process forward."

There has already been a great deal of input, said Lane, noting that the state has held 60 water council meetings, 22 town hall meetings and gathered some 600 comments.

"The resolution we approved last month is subject to any and all legislation," Rep. Lane said. "It will not override any law on the books now or in the future."