DOCSLIB.ORG

Interbasin Transfers

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Interbasin Transfers 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.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Meyer Glitzenstein & Eubanks
    Meyer Glitzenstein & Eubanks LLP 4115 Wisconsin Avenue, N.W., Suite 210 2601 S. Lemay Ave., #7-240 Washington, D.C. 20016 Fort Collins, CO 80525 Telephone (202) 588-5206 Telephone (970) 703-6060 Fax (202) 588-5049 Fax (202) 588-5049 [email protected] [email protected] October 4, 2018 By Internet Submission John Urbanic, NISP EIS Project Manager U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Omaha District Denver Regulatory Office 9307 S. Wadsworth Blvd. Littleton, CO 80128 Re: Comments on the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers’ Final EIS for the Northern Integrated Supply Project in Colorado On behalf of several national, regional, and local non-profit conservation organizations including Save The Poudre: Poudre Waterkeeper (“STP”); Sierra Club, Save the Colorado, Waterkeeper Alliance, WildEarth Guardians, and Fort Collins Audubon Society (“Conservation Organizations”), we hereby submit comments on the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers’ (“Corps”) Final Environmental Impact Statement (“FEIS”) for the Northern Integrated Supply Project (“NISP” or “the Project”). These comments incorporate by reference all previous comments individually and collectively submitted by Conservation Organizations and their officers. Although the Conservation Organizations continue to view the length of the comment period as highly inadequate to allow the public and topical experts to fully engage in the many new issues raised in the Corps’ FEIS—let alone to sufficiently analyze them under federal law and the best available scientific evidence—these comments provide a general overview of the organizations’ primary concerns with the FEIS. Towards that effort, the Conservation Organizations incorporate by reference the following expert reports addressing specific aspects of the FEIS and other relevant materials: Attachment A: Water Demand Analysis Report (LRB Hydrology & Analytics) Attachment B: CV of Lisa Buchanan (LRB Hydrology & Analytics) Attachment C: Alternatives Analysis Report (Gordon McCurry) Attachment D: CV of Dr.
    [Show full text]
  • A Bibliography of Scientific Information on Fraser River Basin Environmental Quality
    --- . ENVIRONMENT CANADA — b- A BIBLIOGRAPHY OF SCIENTIFIC INFORMATION ON FRASER RIVER BASIN ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY . 1994 Supplement e Prepared on contract by: Heidi Missler . 3870 West 11th Avenue Vancouver, B.C. V6R 2K9 k ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION BRANCH PACIFIC AND YUKON REGION NORTH VANCOUVER, B.C. L- ,- June 1994 DOE FRAP 1994-11 *- \- i — --- ABSTRACT -. -. This bibliography is the third in a series of continuing reference books on the Fraser River watershed. It includes 920 references of scientific information on the environmental I quality of the Fraser River basin and is both an update and an extension of the preceding -. bibliography printed in 1992. ,= 1- ,- . 1- 1- !- 1 - — ii — RESUME — La presente bibliographic est la troiseme clans une serie continue portant sur le bassin du fleuve Fraser. Elle comprend 920 citations scientifiques traitant de la qualite de l’environnement clans le bassin du fleuve Fraser, et elle constitue une mise a jour de la bibliographic precedence, publiee en 1992. — — — ---- — —. .— — — ,- .— ... 111 L TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Abstract ‘ i Resume ii Introduction iv References Cited v Acknowledgements vi Figure: 1. Fraser River Watershed Divisions , vii ... Tables: 1. Reference Locations Vlll 2. Geographic Location Keywords ix 3. Physical Environment Keywords x 4. Contamination Kefiords xi, 5. Water Quality Keywords xii . ... 6. Natural Resources Keywords Xlll 7. Biota Keywords xiv 8. General Keywords xv Section One: Author Index Section Two: Title Index \ 117 ( L iv INTRODUCTION This bibliography is the third in a series of continuing reference books on the Fraser River watershed. With its 920 references of scientific information on the environmental quality of the , -.
    [Show full text]
  • 2009 Volume XXI, Number 1 Association, Inc
    Lake Hartwell Winter, 2009 Volume XXI, Number 1 Association, Inc Letter from the President Inside this issue Submitted by Joe Brenner LHA’s Annual Fall Meeting 2 Lake Hartwell reached a record low level in October, and there’s no relief Drew Much Attention in sight. If the current drought continues, the entire conservation pool (625 LHA Represented at Historical 3 MSL) will be consumed by the end of 2009. The effects of climate change Water Conference are upon us. Though no one is sure how overall average rainfall will be affected in the southeastern U.S., all the climatologists I’ve heard from Hartwell Lake Level Projec- 4 tions (or, When will the lake have projected greater weather extremes, i.e. longer and more severe fill up again?) droughts. Ask the Corps 6 The existing Corps Drought Contingency Plan clearly cannot handle the 2008 Hartwell Lake Clean Up 7 weather patterns that we are experiencing. It is based on historical events Campaign a Success and decades old operational approaches. There must be a greater under- standing by all stakeholders within the Savannah River Basin that the reserves in the lakes must be Let’s Get Ready for Boating 8 Next Year maintained in order to protect the entire basin through severe drought situations. It must also be recognized that an appropriate drought plan will promote a “share the pain” approach throughout Proposed Nuclear Power 9 the basin. It is absurd to be holding boat races on the river in Augusta while our businesses suffer, Plant Expansion On The Savannah River our boat ramps are closed, the lake is not navigable and our docks sit on dirt.
    [Show full text]
  • LHA News Fall 05
    Lake Hartwell Fall, 2005 Volume XVII, Number 4 Association, Inc Letter from the President Inside this issue Submitted by Mike Massey 2005 Fall Informational 2 It has been a relatively beautiful summer on the lake. I hope you have all enjoyed it. Meeting The LHA Fall Meeting has been scheduled. Please take a minute to read about it and Anderson Co. Parks 3 when you have finished, mark your calendars to be sure you don’t miss out on this in- Benefit from formative annual event. Bioengineering LHA Annual Fall Meeting. Legislative Committee 4 The LHA Board of Directors is happy to announce that the Lake Hartwell Association Update annual meeting will be held on Thursday, November 10, at the Anderson Civic Center. Boating Safety 4 The meeting will start at 7:00 PM and run for approximately two hours. Request for email 4 The purpose of this meeting is to provide our members, guests and friends of the lake: Addresses • The ability to hear some very interesting and important speakers relating to Hartwell Lake and the Meet the Directors 5 Savannah River Basin • An update of the activities the LHA team has been working for the past year, Safety Alert! for PDFs 6 • The opportunity to meet your officers and members of the Board of Directors, ask questions of News From The Corps 7 them and all speakers and, Lake Level Data 7 • An opportunity to win one of the great door prizes. This year’s keynote speaker is Colonel Mark S. Held, District Commander, Savannah District, U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Hartwell Lake News Is FREE! PAID Monroe, GA a Direct Mail out to Lake Front Property Owner on Lake Hartwell and Permit No
    Prsrt Std US Postage Hartwell Lake News is FREE! PAID www.hartwelllakenews.com Monroe, GA A direct mail out to lake front property owner on Lake Hartwell and Permit No. 15 is distributed to over 200 locations around the lake covering two states and six counties. Like us on Facebook www.hartwelllakeproperties.com • Hartwell Lake Properties • 1-800-BUY-LAKE Volume 15, Number 4 • December 27 – April 5, 2014 SERVING SC AND GA: ANDERSON, CLEMSON, TOWNVILLE, FAIR PLAY, SENECA, HARTWELL, LAVONIA AND TOCCOA INSIDE Corps to Reduce Visitor Services FEATURED HOME Page 16 Next Year Due to Declining Federal Recreation Funds SAVANNAH, Ga. – Due to significant communities while achieving the projected budget reductions in fiscal year necessary cost reductions. 2014, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers “We considered altern-atives Savannah District will reduce park to maintaining park operations and 4 Partain Dr. Looking for a Lake Hartwell operations and visitor services at lakes acceptable visitor services within retreat or full time home? This is it! A completely Hartwell and J. Strom Thurmond during the funding limitations, such as complete furnished 3 BD/2BA home located just off Bouy 2014 recreation season. park closures, partial closures, seasonal S21 of the Savannah Main channel of the lake. The Corps will close one campground reductions, and reduced visitor services,” Deep water location with a double deck dock in place & includes a boat lift for your boat. The and five day use areas on Hartwell Lake, and said Peggy O’Bryan, chief of operations home is situated in a very private setting of 1.41 four campgrounds on Thurmond Lake.
    [Show full text]
  • Water Resource Planning Under Future Climate and Socioeconomic
    PUBLICATIONS Water Resources Research RESEARCH ARTICLE Water Resource Planning Under Future Climate and 10.1002/2017WR020970 Socioeconomic Uncertainty in the Cauvery River Basin in Special Section: Karnataka, India Engagement, Communication, and Decision-Making Under Ajay Gajanan Bhave1,2 , Declan Conway1, Suraje Dessai2 , and David A. Stainforth1,3,4 Uncertainty 1London School of Economics and Political Science, Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment, London, UK, 2Sustainability Research Institute and ESRC Centre for Climate Change Economics and Policy, Key Points: School of Earth and Environment, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK, 3London School of Economics and Political Science, An iterative approach combining 4 qualitative and quantitative methods Centre for the Analysis of Time Series, London, UK, Department of Physics, University of Warwick, Coventry, UK is used to assess robustness of adaptation options and pathways Performance criteria for the Cauvery Abstract Decision-Making Under Uncertainty (DMUU) approaches have been less utilized in developing River Basin in Karnataka are not countries than developed countries for water resources contexts. High climate vulnerability and rapid satisfied under almost all scenarios with or without adaptation socioeconomic change often characterize developing country contexts, making DMUU approaches relevant. A coproduction approach helps We develop an iterative multi-method DMUU approach, including scenario generation, coproduction with target stakeholder priorities in the stakeholders and water resources modeling. We apply this approach to explore the robustness of adapta- hydrological modeling and design of long-term adaptation pathways tion options and pathways against future climate and socioeconomic uncertainties in the Cauvery River Basin in Karnataka, India. A water resources model is calibrated and validated satisfactorily using observed Supporting Information: streamflow.
    [Show full text]
  • Revised Draft Experiences with Inter Basin Water
    REVISED DRAFT EXPERIENCES WITH INTER BASIN WATER TRANSFERS FOR IRRIGATION, DRAINAGE AND FLOOD MANAGEMENT ICID TASK FORCE ON INTER BASIN WATER TRANSFERS Edited by Jancy Vijayan and Bart Schultz August 2007 International Commission on Irrigation and Drainage (ICID) 48 Nyaya Marg, Chanakyapuri New Delhi 110 021 INDIA Tel: (91-11) 26116837; 26115679; 24679532; Fax: (91-11) 26115962 E-mail: [email protected] Website: http://www.icid.org 1 Foreword FOREWORD Inter Basin Water Transfers (IBWT) are in operation at a quite substantial scale, especially in several developed and emerging countries. In these countries and to a certain extent in some least developed countries there is a substantial interest to develop new IBWTs. IBWTs are being applied or developed not only for irrigated agriculture and hydropower, but also for municipal and industrial water supply, flood management, flow augmentation (increasing flow within a certain river reach or canal for a certain purpose), and in a few cases for navigation, mining, recreation, drainage, wildlife, pollution control, log transport, or estuary improvement. Debates on the pros and cons of such transfers are on going at National and International level. New ideas and concepts on the viabilities and constraints of IBWTs are being presented and deliberated in various fora. In light of this the Central Office of the International Commission on Irrigation and Drainage (ICID) has attempted a compilation covering the existing and proposed IBWT schemes all over the world, to the extent of data availability. The first version of the compilation was presented on the occasion of the 54th International Executive Council Meeting of ICID in Montpellier, France, 14 - 19 September 2003.
    [Show full text]
  • 109 2001-USCID-Denver Singh.Pdf
    / NECESSITY OF TRANSBASIN WATER TRANSFER -INDIAN SCENARIO NIRMAL JOT SINGH) A.K. KHURANA2 ABSTRACT Transbasin water transfer is an important activity in the field of water resources development. Although a river basin is the basic hydrologic unit for water resources, the same may not work out to be a proposition for optimum utilisation in the case of surplus water. The assessment may bring out that some basins have surplus water whereas the others may have deficit supplies. The National Water Policy was adopted by the Government oflndia in the year 1987. The policy emphasises the transbasin transfer of water. The policy states "Water should be made available to water short areas by transfer from other areas including transfers from one river basin to another based on a national perspective, after taking into account the requirements ofthe areaslbasins". For meeting the shortages, transbasin transfers of water may be necessary. The necessity of transbasin transfers will depend upon the future projections for the enhanced demand for irrigation, domestic, industrial requirements etc. Considering medium variant, the population ofIndia in the year 2050 AD is expected to be 1640 million as per "Sustaining Water - An Update (1994)" by the United Nations. The food requirement has to be worked out on the same basis. At present, the annual food grain production in India is about 200 million tonnes. This annual requirement of food grain would increase to about 500 million tonnes by the year 2050 AD. Accordingly, it is imperative to have transbasin transfer of water so as to facilitate increased irrigation to meet the food grain production needs and other usages etc.
    [Show full text]
  • Docket 119 Synthesis Iof Comments on the Review.Pdf
    i ii Synthesis of Public Comment on the Forthcoming Review by the Federal Governments of Canada and the United States of the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement A Report to the Governments of the United States and Canada January 2006 The views expressed in this synthesis are those of the individuals and organizations who participated in the public comment process. They are not the views of the International Joint Commission. INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION JOINT MIXTE COMMISSION INTERNATIONALE Canada and United States Canada et États-Unis INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION JOINT MIXTE COMMISSION INTERNATIONALE Canada and United States Canada et États-Unis Herb Gray Dennis Schornack Chair, Canadian Section Chair, United States Section Robert Gourd Irene Brooks Commissioner Commissioner Jack Blaney Allen Olson Commissioner Commissioner International Joint Commission Offices Canadian Section United States Section 234 Laurier Ave. West, 22nd Floor 1250 23rd Street, NW, Suite 100 Ottawa, ON K1P 6K6 Washington, D.C. 20440 Phone: (613) 995-2984 Phone: (202) 736-9000 Fax: (613) 993-5583 Fax: (202) 467-0746 Email: [email protected] Email: [email protected] Great Lakes Regional Office 100 Ouellette Avenue, 8th Floor Windsor, ON N9A 6T3 or P.O. Box 32869, Detroit, MI 48232 Phone: (519) 257-6700 or (313) 226-2170 Fax: (519) 257-6740 Email: [email protected] Acknowledgements The International Joint Commission thanks the people from the Great Lakes, the St. Lawrence River and beyond who took part in the public comment process and whose voices are echoed in this report. ISBN 1-894280-60-1 This report is available online at www.ijc.org.
    [Show full text]
  • The Potential Impact of an Inter-Basin Water Transfer on the Modder and Caledon River Systems
    THE POTENTIAL IMPACT OF AN INTER-BASIN WATER TRANSFER ON THE MODDER AND CALEDON RIVER SYSTEMS by NADENE SLABBERT M.Sc. (UFS) Thesis submitted in fulfillment of the requirements for the degree Philosophiae Doctor in the Faculty of Natural and Agricultural Sciences Department of Plant Sciences, Botany University of the Free State Bloemfontein November, 2007 Promotor: Prof. J.U. Grobbelaar D.Sc. (UFS) Co-promotor: Dr. J.C. Roos Ph.D. (UFS) CONTENT Page ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS i TABLE OF CONTENTS ii Chapter 1: An overview of inter-basin 1 transfer schemes and the South African perspective Chapter 2: The Novo Transfer Scheme 35 Chapter 3: The role of turbidity in the rivers 45 and reservoirs of the Novo inter-basin transfer scheme Chapter 4: The chemical and physical 83 characteristics of the sediment load of the Caledon River and its influence on bio- available nutrients Chapter 5: The potential impact of the Novo 91 transfer scheme on the chemical quality of the various waters Chapter 6: The phytoplankton in the various 137 waters of the Novo transfer scheme Chapter 7: Invertebrates in the Modder and 169 Caledon Rivers FINAL CONCLUSIONS 179 REFERENCES 191 SUMMARY 212 OPSOMMING 214 2 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS: I wish to express my sincere thanks to the following persons and institution, who made it possible for me to complete this study. Our Heavenly Father, Who made it all possible. My promotor, Prof. J.U. Grobbelaar, for his guidance, advice and encouragement. My co-promotor, Dr. J.C. Roos for his guidance and assistance. Mr. J.A. van der Heever and Ms.
    [Show full text]
  • The Influence of Recent Trends in Water Legislation of the Structure and Functions of Water Administration
    Land & Water Law Review Volume 9 Issue 1 Article 1 1974 The Influence of Recent rT ends in Water Legislation of the Structure and Functions of Water Administration Ludwick A. Teclaff Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.uwyo.edu/land_water Recommended Citation Teclaff, Ludwick A. (1974) "The Influence of Recent rT ends in Water Legislation of the Structure and Functions of Water Administration," Land & Water Law Review: Vol. 9 : Iss. 1 , pp. 1 - 19. Available at: https://scholarship.law.uwyo.edu/land_water/vol9/iss1/1 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by Law Archive of Wyoming Scholarship. It has been accepted for inclusion in Land & Water Law Review by an authorized editor of Law Archive of Wyoming Scholarship. Teclaff: The Influence of Recent Trends in Water Legislation of the Struct University of Wyoming College of Law LAND AND WATER LAW REVIEW VOLUME IX 1974 NUMBER 1 Universal trends are being recognized internationally in water legislation. Professor Teclaff sees some of these trends as steps to- ward the goal of the river basin as the legal, as well as natural, unit of water administration, with coordinating functions entrusted to a water agency national in scope. The view of water rights is changing from absolute private ownership to increasing regulation by permit systems. THE INFLUENCE OF RECENT TRENDS IN WATER LEGISLATION ON THE STRUCTURE AND FUNCTIONS OF WATER ADMINISTRATIONt Ludwik A. Teclaff* T HE idea that recent legislation in different parts of the world could have any widespread and uniform influence on water administration generally presupposes some elements common to a large number of water law systems, in develop- ing as well as developed countries.
    [Show full text]
  • Assessing Net Economic Gains from Domestic and Industrial Water Supply: Cases from NRLP Schemes
    Assessing Net Economic Gains from Domestic and Industrial Water Supply: Cases from NRLP Schemes Nirmalya Choudhury, 1 Ankit Patel 1 and Sanjiv Phansalkar 2 1Consultants, IWMI-TATA Water Policy Program, Anand, 2 Former Program Leader, IWMI- TATA Water Policy Program Summary This paper attempts to identify and evolve a method for valuing and estimating the net gains from domestic and industrial water supply from the interbasin transfer schemes contemplated in the National River Link Project (NRLP). An existing interbasin transfer (IBT) scheme, namely Indira Gandhi Nahar Project (IGNP) and a proposed IBT scheme namely Polavaram- Vijaywada (PV) Link Canal were chosen for detailed analyses. Secondary data were used for identifying the region and the populations that benefited from the schemes. Economic gains arising out of water supply to the actual or potentially benefited areas were estimated. The estimation involved assessment of current costs incurred by the people in the area, in terms of both paid-out costs and time spent in fetching water. The saving in time was valued at market wage rates prevalent in the area and paid-out costs were assessed in terms of current market prices, ignoring the administered prices involved. The gains to urban populations were assessed by estimating the reduction in energy costs incurred by municipal authorities in undertaking the supply. Amortized capital costs for putting necessary hardware for distributing water from the IBT schemes as well as operation and maintenance (O&M) costs of running these schemes were netted from the gains to obtain the figures for net economic gains. More indirect benefits such as reduced drudgery or improved educational performance as well as reduced health expenditure were recognized but were all ignored to ensure greater robustness in the estimates.
    [Show full text]