Cities of Fairburn, Palmetto, and Union City Draft Surface Water Withdrawal Permit Response to Comments July 23, 2020

Cities of Fairburn, Palmetto, and Union City Draft Surface Water Withdrawal Permit
Response to Comments

July 23, 2020
Atlanta Comment 1:

Atlanta is particularly concerned with EPD’s apparent acceptance of the South Fulton Cities

characterization of the underlying facts, including the reasons underlying the South Fulton Cities’ rejection of Atlanta’s existing, fully-permitted water capacity to provide the needed wholesale water supply to the South Fulton Cities. Atlanta has provided wholesale water to Fairburn and Union City since 1957 and has continued to do so despite Fairburn and Union

City’s unwillingness to enter into a long term contract. Despite the South Fulton Cities’

protestations otherwise, this water supply is available and Atlanta remains willing and able to enter into a long term water supply contract with the South Fulton Cities. As such, this Permit should be denied.

Response to Atlanta Comment 1: The absence of a long-term contract between the City of Atlanta and the Cities of Fairburn, Palmetto, and Union City (South Fulton Cities) has been considered by EPD in its review of the water withdrawal application by the South Fulton Cities. The fact that these cities and their citizens are without the benefit and guarantee of a long-term water supply contract weighs in EPD’s assessment and decision-making. EPD does not have the legal authority to determine, and therefore does not take a position on, who bears the responsibility of the lack of a contract. Under the 1999 Fulton County Service Delivery Strategy (SDS), the South Fulton Cities are

designated water supply providers to citizens residing inside the cities’ geographic areas. Before

any newer version of the SDS is agreed upon, the 1999 version remains the effective one. This in combination with the lack of a long-term water supply contract clearly establishes the need of water supply for the cities and their residents.

Atlanta Comment 2: In addition, even if the Draft Permit is issued, the South Fulton Cities are required to obtain a Permit to Operate a Public Water System under the Safe Drinking Water Act of 1977, O.C.G.A. 391-3-5, and the Georgia Rules for Safe Drinking Water, r. 391-3-5, which will required this issue to be revisited under a different regulatory standard, which the South Fulton

Cities will not be able to satisfy. The South Fulton Cities will be required to “evaluate connecting to an existing locally governmentally owned system” and EPD is prohibited from issuing this permit “until the owner has provided acceptable certification to the Division

outlining the reasons why the system cannot connect to an existing local governmentally owned system.” GRR 391.3.5-.04(4) and (5). EPD Guidance provides that, before EPD can consider a

water system development project, the permit applicant must provide a “written letter . . . from the nearest governmentally owned water system denying the owner’s request for water service.”

See EPD Water System Review and Permitting Process (October 2016). Further, this document

provides that if this and other mandatory information is not received within 90 days of

commencement of phase I of the three phase permitting process, “no further consideration will be given for the water system development project.” Atlanta is the “nearest governmentally owned water system.” The South Fulton Cities cannot demonstrate that it has requested this

service from Atlanta or that Atlanta has denied providing this service. In fact, Atlanta will continue to agree to provide water service to the South Fulton Cities and is ready to develop a long-term contract to do so.

Response to Atlanta Comment 2: First, Rule 391-3-5-.04 is one of Georgia Rules for Safe Drinking Water. It does not address how an application of a surface water withdrawal permit is reviewed and processed. Therefore it does not pertain to the permit application under consideration.

Second, the 1999 SDS clearly establishes that the South Fulton Cities are the designated providers of water supply to residents within the geographic areas of the cities. Proper

consideration and issuance of permits to facilitate the cities’ providing such water supply service

to their citizens is consistent with State laws and regulations (O.C.G.A. § 12-5-31, O.C.G.A. §12-5-170, and Rules 391-3-6-.07 and 391-3-5-.04).

Third, the South Fulton Cities (applicants) already have Permits to Operate Public Water Systems. The City of Fairburn has Permit GA1210004; the City of Palmetto has Permit GA1210008; the City of Union City has Permit GA1210010. The issuance of a surface water withdrawal permit to these cities does not in any ways prevent these permits from being renewed or modified in the future.

Atlanta Comment 3: Atlanta is also concerned with the inflated population projections leading to inflated rates

for water withdrawal and potential impacts on “Water Wars” negotiations, as recently exemplified by the State of Alabama’s concerns with Coweta County Water and Sewerage Authority’s request for a water withdrawal permit2. Chattahoochee Riverkeeper first raised this

concern in its comments dated May 8, 2019. Chattahoochee Riverkeeper questioned the “astronomical” population projections presented in the 2017 Study by the Carl Vinson Institute of Government at the University of Georgia for the South Fulton Cities. The EPD Response does

not address Chattahoochee Riverkeeper’s concerns with the population projections but rather merely states that “EPD does not have the expertise to complete such detailed analysis internally

and depends on the work of these professional demographers and sources for project evaluations

on a consistent basis.” This is not a sufficient response to valid concern.

Atlanta has solicited its own population study for the South Fulton Cities. The attached report prepared by Stantec/SG Joint Venture indicates that the Vinson Institutes projections are significantly higher than projections based on data presented and extrapolated using Census and

the Governor’s Office of Planning and Budget Information³. Specifically, Stantec/SG Joint Venture is “of the opinion that the water withdrawal need used by EPD to justify the water withdrawal amounts for the Three Cities is not justified by available data.” Rather than eschew

the responsibility to prepare an independent population analysis, EPD must conduct its own independent analysis to support the withdrawal rates. If the proposed rates cannot be supported, the rates must be revised to reflect realistic population projections.

Response to Atlanta Comment 3:

First, O.C.G.A. § 12-5-31 states, “The division shall take into consideration the extent to which

any withdrawals, diversions, or impoundments are reasonably necessary, in the judgment of the director, to meet the applicant's needs and shall grant a permit which shall meet those reasonable needs; provided, however, that the granting of such permit shall not have unreasonably adverse

effects upon other water uses in the area.” The law clearly articulates the division’s consideration of whether a withdrawal is “reasonably necessary,” and the law explicitly authorizes the Director

of EPD to exercise his/her judgement in this consideration. The Carl Vinson Institute is a respected and reliable source of demographic projections, and the

institute works closely with the Governor’s Office of Planning and Budget in developing the

State of Georgia’s population projections. EPD Director exercised his judgement and concluded that the population projections provided by the Institute for the South Fulton Cities as credible and reliable.

Second, the alternative population projection provided by the City of Atlanta’s consultant, Stantec/SG Joint Venture (Stantec), appears to be problematic. Both Stantec’s developing of an

annual rate of historical population growth and its application of that annual growth rate in its projection of population (extrapolation into the future) appear to be on a linear basis. In other words, the compounding effect of population growth has been ignored in the Stantec analysis. If the annual growth rates had been developed on an exponential basis and if those annual growth rates had been applied on an exponential basis in the projection process, much higher population projections would result.

Third, the South Fulton Cities’ demographer, Carl Vinson Institute considered trends in local

option sales tax indicating their expanding share of population within Fulton County. The South Fulton Cities also provided evidence of increasing industrial and commercial developments

within the cities. These factors have not been considered or assessed by Stantec’s population

projection. Chattahoochee Riverkeeper Comment 1:

CRK does not agree with EPD’s assessment in Response #8 that this permit application and “current form of the project complies with the” current updated and relevant Plan.

Response to Chattahoochee Riverkeeper Comment 1: See July 20, 2020 letter from the Metropolitan North Georgia Water Planning District (Metro District) (Attachment A) confirming consistency between the proposed project and the Metro District Water Resource Management Plan (Metro Plan). The Metro District letter clearly expressed its judgement that the project is consistent with Appendix B of the Metro Plan.

The South Fulton Cities also worked closely with the Metro District and EPD to ensure

compliance with all of the Metro Plan’s action items, as evidenced by the Director’s May 19, 2020 and May 20, 2020 issuance of “Good-faith Letters” to the cities.

EPD has made the determination that the combination of the above clearly establishes compliance of the South Fulton Cities with various aspects of the Metro Plan.

Chattahoochee Riverkeeper Comment 2: EPD and the District should require the Cities to submit a Plan amendment request to the District because the current form of the project does not comply with the Plan.

Response to Chattahoochee Riverkeeper Comment 2: See Response to Chattahoochee Riverkeeper Comment 1.

Chattahoochee Riverkeeper Comment 3: Regarding Response #4: The Cities do not appear to have met the requirements of Rules for Safe Drinking Water 319-3-5-.04.(4) and (5). The Cities do not appear to have fully evaluated

“connecting to an existing local governmentally owned and operated public water system” operated by the City of Atlanta. It is not clear that the Cities have “provided acceptable certification” to EPD “outlining the reasons why” the Cities cannot maintain a connection to the City of Atlanta’s public water system. The Cities and the City of Atlanta can negotiate a Service

Delivery Strategy and contract. The lack of a contract is the result of an absence of negotiations

and not due to the lack of a functional and capable connection to “a reliable future water source.”

It seems that the parties have backed themselves into a corner, not unlike the states of Alabama, Florida and Georgia who have been embroiled in a transboundary water conflict for decades: with a legacy of broken-trust, neither appears willing to negotiate, leaving the resource and rate payers to suffer.

Response to Chattahoochee Riverkeeper Comment 3: See Response to Atlanta Comment 2. Chattahoochee Riverkeeper Comment 4: Regarding Comment and Response #11: CRK wishes to point out that one District community member—the Coweta County Water and Sewer Authority (CCWSA) projects a significantly lower per capita usage than the Cities. In an April 15, 2020 request for a major amendment to the

District’s Plan, the CCWSA anticipates a future demand projection of 60 gallons per capita per

day (in combined residential and non-residential use) in 50 years based on the Water Research Foundation’s report titled Residential End Users of Water, Version 2 Executive Report. The Cities would do well to consider this resource to improve future water demand.

Response to Chattahoochee Riverkeeper Comment 4:

The South Fulton Cities’ projected per capita water use of 103 gallons per capita per day (gpcd)

is below the Metro Plan’s baseline of 108 gpcd and is within the realm of reason. It is a reasonable basis for projecting water supply needs.

Chattahoochee Riverkeeper Comment 5: Regarding Comment and Response #13: How is EPD evaluating the effects on the Chattahoochee River (donor) basin and Flint River (recipient) basin of an interbasin transfer (IBT) that will increase in volume by 33 percent as anticipated by the applicant?

Response to Chattahoochee Riverkeeper Comment 5:

As stated in EPD’s prior response, the applicant’s proposed withdrawal from the Chattahoochee

River does not have any incremental implications in terms of interbasin transfer. There is no contemplation of changes to wastewater infrastructure or deviation from the Metro Plan.

When reviewing the proposed water withdrawal and its impact on both the Chattahoochee and

Flint River Basins, EPD’s Hydrology Unit has conducted HEC-ResSim modeling simulations. Two alternatives have been considered: (1) A baseline reflecting the Army Corps of Engineers’ Water Control Manual operation, accommodating Metro Atlanta area’s projected 2050 water

supply needs including up to 379 mgd from the Chattahoochee River between Buford Dam and the Peachtree Creek confluence, and (2) the proposed water withdrawal of 13.25 mgd being relocated from upstream of the Peachtree Creek confluence with the Chattahoochee River to its current location. A summary of this analysis is provided in Attachment B of this response.

The Hydrology Unit conducted modeling of these alternatives and concluded that there would be only minor differences in the Chattahoochee River Basin (Slides 6-35), no difference in the Flint River Basin (Slides 36-45), and virtually no difference in releases from Jim Woodruff (Slides 56- 65). See Attachment B for more details. Chattahoochee Riverkeeper Comment 6:

Regarding Special Condition #16: In Table 1, CRK observes a change in the “Monthly low flow requirements on Chattahoochee River immediately downstream of the Authority’s intake

location” in this Draft Permit when compared with the March 6, 2019 Draft Permit. Nearly every single monthly low flow protection threshold metric has gone down, meaning that withdrawals will be allowed at even lower flows than contemplated in first Draft Permit. While some of the changes amount to a single cubic-feet-per-second (cfs), other changes are of a magnitude of more than 100 cfs. How does EPD explain the changes in the monthly low flow requirements from the initial draft permit to this draft permit?

Response to Chattahoochee Riverkeeper Comment 6: There are two reasons for the apparent differences. First, hydrologic conditions have been updated by incorporating the latest period of observed stream flow. The initial building blocks of instream flow protection thresholds have been developed with a long period of stream flow

record and an EPD computational tool for calculating monthly 7Q10’s. When the latest monthly 7Q10’s were calculated, additional hydrologic record has been added to the long time series.

This resulted in an updated set of monthly 7Q10’s.

Second, the newly developed monthly 7Q10’s have been slightly adjusted to ensure uninterrupted water supply operation. The updated monthly 7Q10’s, when used in modeling the

proposed water supply operation in the context of the Chattahoochee and Flint River Basins, would result in a few days of water supply shortage. The South Fulton Cities suggested slight

adjustments to the initial 7Q10’s to ensure water supply is secured and conducted a reach-

specific study to support this approach. The study was focused on potential impacts to fish habitat, recreational interests, and West Point reservoir downstream of the proposed intake. The

applicant’s study shows very little impact to any of the interests identified. After consulting

Wildlife Resources Division (WRD), EPD concurs with the study’s findings of no significant impact. The South Fulton Cities’ report on this reach-specific study is provided as Attachment C of this response.

The combination of these two factors results in the current set of instream flow protection thresholds. As demonstrated by modeling results shown in Attachment B, the proposed water withdrawal operation, including instream flow protection at the proposed intake, has very little impact to the Chattahoochee River Basin, the Flint River Basin, or Jim Woodruff release into the Apalachicola River.

Attachment A

July 20, 2020 Wei Zeng, Ph.D., Manager Water Supply Program, Watershed Protection Branch Georgia Environmental Protection Division 2 Martin Luther King Jr. Dr., S.E. East Floyd Towers, Suite 1152 Atlanta, Georgia 30334

Submitted via email to: [email protected] Re: Draft Surface Water Withdrawal Permit - Cities of Fairburn, Palmetto, and Union City Dear Dr. Zeng, I understand that a public comment has been submitted regarding whether the May 27, 2020 Surface Water Withdrawal Permit for the Cities of Fairburn, Palmetto, and Union City (the “Withdrawal Permit”) complies with the facility planning included in the Metropolitan North Georgia Water Planning District’s (“District”) 2017 Water Sources Management Plan, Appendix B (“District Plan”). While Director Dunn, as Director of the Georgia Environmental Protection Division (EPD), retains final authority on the question of compliance with the District Plan, this letter provides District staff opinion on whether the current proposal incorporated in the Withdrawal Permit is in compliance with the District Plan.

As you know, Appendix B outlines local government plans to expand or build new water and wastewater treatment facilities in the Metro Water District to meet 2050 forecasted demands. Facility capacities listed in Appendix B are considered maximums, and utilities may plan within and up to that capacity. Appendix B currently contemplates that the South Fulton Municipal Regional Water and Sewer Authority (the “Authority”), which is comprised of the three local governments that have applied for the Withdrawal Permit, will build water treatment facilities with an estimated yield of 16.44 AAD-MGD.¹As contemplated in the Plan, the Authority had originally been planning to build the Bear Creek Reservoir to supply its water treatment plant. The reservoir would have sourced its water from the Chattahoochee River below Peacthree Creek.

¹See Note 2 on page 22 of Appendix B, which covers water supply facilities in Fulton County.

Dr. Wei Zeng July 20, 2020
Page 2

The only change contemplated in the current Withdrawal Permit is to supply the treatment plant directly with water sourced from the Chattahoochee River below Peachtree Creek, rather than first building a reservoir served by the Chattahoochee River that would then serve the treatment plant. While there may be some need for a raw water storage reservoir(s) on the treatment plant site, the current proposal eliminates the cost and environmental impact associated with the larger, planned Bear Creek Reservoir. The current proposal also seeks to withdraw less water than the yield contemplated in the District Plan (7.12 MGD-AAD instead of 16.44 MGD-AAD).

The District staff opinion is that the Withdrawal Permit complies with the facility planning in Appendix B because it uses the same water source (the Chattahoochee River) and seeks to withdraw less water. Appendix B is focused on water treatment facility planning to meet local government demands, recognizing that local governments may choose to plan within and up to the listed treatment capacities. The fact that the new facility plan does so without building the Bear Creek Reservoir does not change the underlying analysis in the District plan relating to water sources, demands, and planned plant capacities reflected in Appendix B.

Again, based upon the District’s enabling legislation, EPD has final authority in determining compliance with all aspects of the District Plan. This letter merely serves as some background and District staff opinion on the issue at hand. If you have any questions, please reach out to me any time.

Sincerely,

Katherine Zitsch Director Metropolitan North Georgia Water Planning District

cc: Glenn Page, District Board Chair

Attachment B

Impacts Analysis of Proposed

South Fulton Withdrawal

Georgia EPD

Hydrology Unit

July 2020

Contents

• River reach configuration (Slide 3) • Model Settings (Slide 4) • Model Results (Slides 5-65)

• Findings (Slide 66)

2

River Reach Configuration

Baseline: Projected 2050 Metro Atlanta water supply demand (up to 379 mgd) is located upstream of the USGS Vinings Gage, and is met

by the Army Corps of Engineers’

releases from Lake Lanier per its 2017 Water Control Manual

Proposed Withdrawal: Projected water demand of 13.25 mgd by South Fulton Cities will instead be

placed roughly 12 miles

downstream of Peachtree Creek confluence

3

Model Settings

• HEC-ResSim Model Developed by USACE for Environmental

Impacts Analysis of ACF Basin Water Control Plan Update ( March 2017)

• Simulation Period: 1939-2011

• Demands: Metro-Atlanta Projected 2050 Demand

• Two Scenarios:

• Baseline: without proposed South Fulton withdrawal, e.g. 13.25 mgd is

part of Metro Atlanta water supply demand met by the Corps releases

from Lanier;
• Proposed South Fulton withdrawal: 13.25 mgd withdrawal is instead placed between the Vinings Gage and the Whitesburg Gage, roughly 12 miles downstream of the Peachtree Creek confluence

4

Model Results

• West Point Inflow, Elevation, and Release

• Flow at Flint River near Montezuma

• ACF Composite Storage • Lake Seminole (Jim Woodruff Dam) Release • Evaluation measures: (1) Frequency; (2) Daily Time Series in Wet Years
(1965,1973 and 2003); (3) Daily Time Series in Normal Years (1962,1979 and 1998); (4) Daily Time Series in Drought Years (1986,

2007 and 2011).

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15