In response to the water resource challenges facing Georgia, Governor Barnes proposed and the General Assembly adopted Senate Resolution 142 during the 2001 legislative session. SR142 created the 23-member Joint Comprehensive Water Plan Study Committee and the 50-member Water Plan Advisory Committee. The resolution charged the study committee to:

• Consider existing policy, laws, rules and programs to manage water resources;
• Recommend a process and schedule to prepare the details of a comprehensive water plan;
• Develop the principles for a comprehensive water plan;
• Undertake a study of the water resources issues, including water quality and quantity, facing Georgia, and
• Recommend any other action or legislation the study committee deems appropriate.

The study committee had until September 2002 to complete its work and as Gov. Roy Barnes has stated several times over the last few months, Georgia has enough water. Specifically, the Governor’s legislative aide, Joe Young, said it was not a time to panic and that dramatic changes were not the solution. Gov. Barnes has made it clear that conservation, water management and regional reservoirs were the strategies that should be used to resolve the current water situation. It was easy to get the feeling from these remarks that the administration would not sponsor a wholesale rewriting of Georgia’s water laws and regulations. From an industry point of view, these were fairly welcomed words. Most industry representatives agreed with the Governor’s perceptions and recommendations, but the times have changed. What can we expect now that the Governor-elect Sonny Perdue is taking the helm? We have two clues to that question; first, Senator Perdue voted in favor of Senate Resolution 142, the bill that created the Joint Comprehensive Water Plan Study Committee (“Study Committee”); second, in an interview closely following his election, Governor-elect Perdue answers a question about how water fits into his 2003 legislative agenda. Governor-elect Perdue stated that water has to be on the top of the agenda. He also stated that he plans to review the recommendations of the Study Committee, assessing what statutory issues should be addressed. Conservation and water management are also on his mind. Further, he opined that common sense, regional, common watershed reservoir programs that are environmentally and ecologically friendly should be developed. This does not drastically vary from what we heard from the current Governor’s office, at least not on the face of either statement. It is important to keep in mind, however, that Governor-Elect Perdue comes from a farming region of the state and that he is in the agricultural business. Whether these factors make a significant difference in his approach to water policy remains to be seen.

The truth is, the future of water policy in Georgia is anybody’s guess. Guessing what new statutes and regulations will be introduced during and following the 2003 General Assembly is like looking into a foggy crystal ball. One thing is sure though, there will be legislation and there will be legislators out there protecting the interests of their constituents. This battle will not fall along party lines either, but along the lines of common interests. In this case, truly, all politics are local. Metro-Atlanta legislators are going to have common interests, as are South Georgia legislators. Agricultural areas will conjoin, as will the suburbs, the coast and the industrial community, etc.

How did we get here? That’s easy. Just to begin with, we are in negotiations (read “conflict”) with Florida and Alabama over shared surface water use in those three states. Then, there is the issue of where the water is and where the water can go as local governments, industry and environmentalist all have strong opinions about inter-basin transfers. Lake Lanier homeowners and vacationers look at an increasingly muddy hole where they use to enjoy many recreational activities. The Corps of Engineers and others want the Lake Lanier water to be used for hydroelectric power, irrigation or government water systems. Industries and local governments want permits to withdraw surface or groundwater to provide for a growing, stable economy and population. Farmers want to irrigate crops and stress their riparian property rights. Environmentalists have come up with a draft list of 64 recommendations, though their final recommendations are yet known. The Metro-Atlanta Area is growing, the coast is growing, and rural communities want water so that they can grow as well. South Carolina has threatened a lawsuit because of the depletion of the Floridian Aquifer, which has caused salt-water intrusion into the Hilton Head Island groundwater supply. Some people in South Carolina want to take more water from the Savannah River and legislators there have introduced a bill (that did not pass) to form a bi-state compact with Georgia. Georgia fishermen complain that the withdrawal of surface-water from the rivers has caused harm to the spawning places in the brackish water for the seafood that is their livelihood. The use of groundwater for irrigation along the Flint River has caused that body of flowing water to suffer reduced water flows. Wildlife proponents want increased flows, reduced run-off and larger buffers along streams for fish and wild to flourish. Federal Judge Marvin Schoob has placed restrictions on TMDLs (total maximum daily loads) from non-point source run-off along our rivers and streams. Then, just to add insult to injury, we have suffered a long-term drought. So, how do we get out of it?

The Study Committee in its final report recommended 35 areas to be considered by the Governor and other policymakers. These recommendations are too lengthy to list here, but the entire body of reports can be found on the web at http://www.cviog.uga.edu/water/finalreport.pdf, however, some the highlights are:

1. Legislative implications: Develop and implement a Comprehensive State Water Management Plan (to be administered by the Environmental Protection Division) within 3 years of passage of a statute. This plan would be revised every 5 years with annual review for consistency. The recommended plan would require a study of consumptive use of water. The plan would also include local and regional plans.

2. Creation of governmental bodies:
• A Water Planning Branch within EPD, part of which would require the advisability of lowering permitting levels from 100,000 gallons per day to some other threshold.
• Council on Water for intergovernmental oversight to report to the Governor’s office.
• Interagency Technical Working Group (state and federal agencies).
• Stake holder’s Advisory Group for public input and review of the development process.

3. The Water Plan would address significant current issues including:
• Wastewater capacity; attaining water quality standards; water as a public resource versus a market commodity; allocation; allocation to private entities for resale; legal status of existing water permits; legal status of aquifer water; agricultural water use; soil erosion and sedimentation; and privately owned water systems.
• Overall, the goals of the Water Plan would include a strong educational component; development of a plan to manage water as a fully integrated system; to manage water in order to protect the resource; to allocate water and encourage efficient use; and base water decision on sound science.

4. Other recommended legislative initiatives include:
• Legislation to tighten regulation of interbasin transfers, limiting them to moving water across not more than two adjacent counties.
• The Study Committee also recommended that definitions of surface and groundwater be set out and that the State establish a statewide drought management plan.
• Three additional initiatives would give the Director of EPD the authority to deny agricultural permits if there is no water available or if there is no apparent need for the permit; require agriculture to report water use and the creation of a statute to clearly define the process to be used to transfer water permit capacity from one user to another. Whether large-scale changes or limited tweaking will be the result, the role of water in the future of Georgia will be a major topic in the upcoming two-year legislative session. As interest groups prepare for the fight, the impact on Georgia’s future cannot be overstated.