Interbasin Transfers Background Interbasin transfers of water are common throughout the history of the world (Roman aqueducts) and currently common throughout the United States. Interbasin transfers of water have been occurring in Georgia for many decades. There is no specific definition of interbasin transfers in Georgia, but the general definition in the State Water Plan is as follows: “Interbasin transfer” is a withdrawal of water from one river basin, followed by use and/or return of some or all of that water to a second river basin. The river basin from which the withdrawal or diversion occurs is termed the ‘donor’ basin, and the river basin to which all or a portion of the water is diverted and returned is termed the ‘receiving’ basin. “River basin” is not defined but is generally assumed to be one of the fourteen major river basins in Georgia (example: Coosa, Savannah). The definition does not distinguish between surface water withdrawals and groundwater withdrawals, but generally only surface water withdrawals are of interbasin transfer concern. The definition does not distinguish the various types of existing or possible interbasin transfers in Georgia as listed below: 1. Long distance transfer of water from one region to another, like a possible transfer of water from Lake Hartwell (Savannah Basin) to Atlanta (Chattahoochee Basin). 2. Transfer of water from one basin to another basin within one county/city without returning all the water in the form of treated wastewater. (Examples – DeKalb, Cobb and Gwinnett). 3. Transfer of water from one basin to another within one city/county and all collected wastewater is returned but non-wastewater (leaks, outdoor usage, septic tanks, etc.) is not. (Examples – City of Atlanta, South Fulton). 4. Short distance transfer of water from one local government to another over a basin line (Examples - Atlanta to Fayette/Coweta, Cobb to Douglas). 5. South and Central Georgia pumpage of groundwater in one basin for use in another basin, typically in cities located on ridgelines (Examples - Cordele, Waycross, Moultrie). 1 Unfortunately, when the term “interbasin transfer” is used, no distinction between the above categories is made and meaningful discussion has been difficult. Interbasin transfers rose to a concern in Georgia in the 1990’s primarily as a reaction to projected water deficiencies in metropolitan Atlanta promoting the fear of Atlanta stealing water from other regions. This concern/fear has lead to passage of existing legislation, proposed legislation and upcoming study committees. Current Law/Rules A water withdrawal over 100,000 gallons per day requires a permit from the Environmental Protection Division (EPD) regardless of whether or not such withdrawal is part of an interbasin transfer. The applicant for a permit must meet EPD’s requirements including downstream flow protection from the point of withdrawal. Therefore, permits for existing and future interbasin transfers can be issued only if downstream flows are protected. Also, existing and future interbasin transfers must meet all other EPD requirements, such as water conservation, proper drinking water treatment, demonstration of need, proper wastewater treatment, etc. The 2001 statue creating the Metropolitan North Georgia Water Planning District expressly prohibits the interbasin transfer of water into the 15 county metropolitan Atlanta area. Therefore, any transfer of Tennessee or Savannah River Basin water to Atlanta has been and is currently prohibited by law. The State Water Plan (which is adopted into State law by reference) has two portions relating to interbasin transfers. One prohibits interbasin transfers of raw water until water plans for the affected regions are completed. The second portion is a list of criteria the DNR Board will consider if the Board decides to adopt rules for the permitting of new interbasin transfers. These criteria are for consideration only and do not have the force of law. Finally, the State Water Plan calls for the DNR Board to adopt regulations on interbasin transfers in 2011. Subsequently, EPD’s Regional Planning Guidance dated July 2009 schedules this rule adoption to be completed at the end of 2011. 2 Current Interbasin Transfers The concern about interbasin transfers is focused on surface water withdrawals by local governments (concerns about groundwater withdrawals, farm withdrawals and industrial withdrawals are not related to interbasin transfers). EPD has summarized the twelve major (greater than 1.0 mgd) Year 2008 interbasin transfers as follows: 2008 Net Annual Average Water System Basin Transfer Transfer (mgd) DeKalb County Chattahoochee to Ocmulgee 37.2 Gwinnett County Chattahoochee to Ocmulgee 15.3 City of Gainesville Chattahoochee to Oconee 5.0 City of Atlanta Chattahoochee to Flint 1.6 Carroll Co. Water Auth. Chattahoochee to Tallapoosa 3.6 Cobb Co. Water Auth. Coosa to Chattahoochee 16.6 City of Griffin Flint to Ocmulgee 3.6 Forsyth County Chattahoochee to Coosa 3.3 Newnan Water System Flint to Chattahoochee 4.0 Eastside Utilities Tennessee to Coosa 2.3 Clayton County Flint to Ocmulgee 5.7 City of Cumming Chattahoochee to Coosa 1.3 There are sixteen smaller transfers that are not listed, but if the impacts from those are combined with the major impacts, the summary of the interbasin transfers impacts on the Georgia river basins is as follows. 2008 2008 2008 River Basin Water Gained Water Lost (mgd) Net (+/- mgd) (mgd) Chattahoochee 21.4 69.1 -47.7 Coosa 8.1 18.3 -10.2 Flint 2.3 13.3 -11.0 Ocmulgee 61.9 1.8 +60.1 Oconee 6.8 0.0 +6.8 Tallapoosa 3.8 0.0 +3.8 Tennessee 1.0 2.7 -1.7 Savannah 0 0.3 -0.3 Ogeechee 0.2 0 +0.2 Total 105.5 105.5 0 This summary does not include the small City of Savannah and City of Toccoa transfers of water out of the Savannah Basin. It also does not include the large City of Greenville, South Carolina transfer out of the Savannah Basin. 3 There is no active study or proposal for an interbasin transfer of water into metropolitan Atlanta. In fact, the Governor’s Water Contingency Task Force rejected all such possibilities. Instead, water conservation, wastewater reuse and water supply reservoirs were identified to replace Lake Lanier (if necessary) as a water supply source. Gwinnett County has just significantly reduced its water transfer to the Ocmulgee Basin. DeKalb County is in the process of a similar reduction which is five to ten years away. The main concerns expressed about the current interbasin transfers relate to the loss of water in the Coosa and Chattahoochee River Basins downstream of metropolitan Atlanta. However, the Coosa River Basin loss is less than 1% of the lowest annual average Etowah River flow downstream of Lake Allatoona and less than 6% of the lowest monthly average stream flow. Likewise, the Chattahoochee River Basin loss is less than 2% of the lowest yearly average stream flow at Whitesburg and less than 7% of the lowest monthly stream flow. These are extreme conditions and the long term average impacts are less than half the above percentages. Also, of the total of 5,500 mgd of water withdrawn by Georgians yearly, less than 2% is related to interbasin transfers. 2010 Legislative Proposals As result of the concern (emotional, rather than fact-driven) over interbasin transfers, two legislative initiatives were pursued (unsuccessfully) in the 2010 Georgia General Assembly session. HB 1301 and its Senate counterpart, SB 462, were introduced but did not pass. These bills were extremely far reaching and addressed existing and future interbasin transfers as follows: 1. All water permits related to all interbasin transfers (groundwater withdrawal, surface water withdrawal, wastewater discharge) upon renewal or modification and all new permits must be issued only if the applicant can satisfy new criteria. These criteria, as contained in HB 1301/SB 462, were very subjective and would be impossible to meet. 2. The bills immediately prohibited any transfer of water (even existing systems) across two county lines. 4 These bills, if passed, would have immediately cut off water service to parts of Clayton County, Paulding County, Douglas County, Cherokee County, Coweta County, and Troup County. They would have prohibited EPD from renewing permits for water service to at least 2 million persons in metropolitan Atlanta. They would have stopped drinking water service in dozens of cities in Central and South Georgia. The second legislative initiative was an amendment added by the House of Natural Resources Committee to SB 442. This amendment purportedly placed the interbasin criteria of the State Water Plan proposed for consideration by the DNR Board into State law as firm and absolute criteria. However, the amendment also provided more stringent prohibition on the transfer of raw water and it required the above criteria to be permitting requirements for increased interbasin transfers, not just new transfers. This amendment was not anywhere near the severe HB 1301/SB 462 bills, but would have thrown confusion and obstacles into water planning/permitting in Georgia. SB 442 did not pass in 2010. HB 1301, SB 462 and the SB 442 amendments would most likely have passed if the leadership in the House and Senate did not stop these bills. Going Forward As a result of the 2010 legislative initiatives, leadership in the House and Senate announced a group of subcommittees to study the interbasin transfer issue in 2010 presumably to make legislative recommendations. Most, if not all, of the members of these subcommittees are vocal opponents of interbasin transfers. The work plans for these committees are not yet set, but regional meetings are envisioned. Recommendations Georgia now has a regulatory process that controls interbasin transfers as needed to manage water resources. This process prevents harm to stream flows in donor basins and protects water users in receiving basins.