Georgia Water Task Force Final Report

WATER CONTINGENCY PLANNING
TASK FORCE

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

21 December 2009

i
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The Task Force acknowledges the dedication of the co-chairs:
John Brock Chairman and CEO, Coca-Cola Enterprises
Tim Lowe CEO, Lowe Engineers

A special thanks to Technical Advisors who donated their time and resources to the Task Force effort.

AECOM
Arcadis
Brown and Caldwell
CH2M Hill
Golder & Associates
Jordan Jones and Goulding
MACTEC Engineering in partnership with Tanner and Associates, Tommy Craig, Schnabel
Engineering and B&E Jackson Engineers
Post Buckley Shue & Jernigan
University of North Carolina, Environmental Finance Center

and

The Boston Consulting Group (Atlanta office) for coordination of Technical Advisor Teams
and overall process facilitation

ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

1 Executive Summary ............................................................................................................................... 4
2 Introduction............................................................................................................................................5
2.1 Background.........................................................................................................................................5
2.2 Limitations on scope of study...........................................................................................................7
3 Recommendations: supporting Policies and Actions......................................................................... 8
3.1 Policy Recommendations to pursue now....................................................................................... 9
3.2 Policy Recommendations in case of Contingency Plan requirements..................................... 12
3.3 Additional policies for consideration............................................................................................. 14
4 Recommended Contingency Solutions............................................................................................... 14
4.1 Description of 2012 option portfolio .............................................................................................. 16
4.2 2015 contingency portfolio ............................................................................................................. 20
4.3 Recommended 2020 portfolio of options ...................................................................................... 21
5 Methodology .........................................................................................................................................23
5.1 Task Force solution development process ....................................................................................23
5.2 Primary and Alternate 2020 portfolios ........................................................................................25
6 Summary Of Task Force Feedback .................................................................................................... 29
6.1 Summary of Task Force feedback on principles .......................................................................... 29
6.2 Summary of Task Force feedback on portfolios...........................................................................30
6.3 No-regret and contingency options ............................................................................................ 31
6.4 Alternative views on key types of options .....................................................................................32
7 Topics Pending Further Evaluation ....................................................................................................34
7.1 Determination of downstream flow impact ..................................................................................34
7.2 Additional options requiring more detailed evaluation .............................................................. 35
7.3 Regional governance model............................................................................................................38
8. Conclusion........................................................................................................................................38

DEFINITION OF KEY TERMS

APPENDIX
I. List of Task Force Members
II. Fact base: water situation, facts on usage
III. Complete set of options evaluated with rationale, cost, yield, implementation feasibility
IV. Technical assumptions used in option evaluation
V. Task Force member survey results
VI. Comments and submissions provided to Task Force

iii
144200-01 Water Contingency Planning Task
Force Report v11.doc

TABLE OF FIGURES

Page

Figure 1: Projected water shortfall in 2012 under Judge Magnusons ruling.............................................. 6
Figure 2: Aggressive implementation of conservation options insufficient to address 2012 gap ........... 17
Figure 3: Overall District water usage levels .............................................................................................. 18
Figure 4: List of options available by 2012.................................................................................................... 19
Figure 5: List of options in recommended 2015 portfolio......................................................................... 20
Figure 6: Indirect potable reuse infrastructure requirement..................................................................... 21
Figure 7: List of options in recommended 2020 portfolio..........................................................................22
Figure 8: Task Force solution development process...................................................................................23
Figure 9: Options key feasibility considerations ........................................................................................25
Figure 10: Defining the primary and alternate 2020 portfolios ..............................................................25
Figure 11: List of options in the cost optimal 2020 portfolio ..................................................................... 26
Figure 12: List of options in the primary 2020 portfolio...........................................................................27
Figure 13: List of options in the alternate 2020 portfolio and comparsion with primary ................... 28
Figure 14: Assessment of no-regret and contingency options through TF survey results ...................32
Figure 15: Distribution of Task Force response on support for key prioritization principles................ 29
Figure 16: Level of support for key prioritization principles by various sub-groups ...............................30

4
1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Water Contingency Planning Task Force was created to analyze the potential water shortfall in
Georgia in light of Judge Magnusons July 2009 ruling, and to develop a contingency plan containing a
prioritized set of recommendations on water conservation and supply options. The Task Force
evaluation reaffirms that Lake Lanier is by far the best water supply source for the metro region. If
the recommended contingency options were required instead, these options would impose
significant incremental economic costs and environmental impact the region does not currently face.

The Task Force does not foresee the ability of the metro region to meet the potential water shortfall
in 2012, when Judge Magnusons ruling could take effect, even with extremely aggressive mandated
conservation. Within this timeframe, no new supply options could offer significant yield. By 2015,
there is a potential contingency solution, consisting primarily of an indirect potable reuse project,
along with a set of conservation measures and isolated groundwater options. The 2015 solution
would, however, require significant upfront capital of approximately $3 billion and supply water at an
average incremental unit cost of $890 per million gallons (MG). By 2020, a broader set of more cost-
effective options exists, as reservoirs and transfers could be implemented. In that regard, the Task
Force recommends a 2020 contingency solution that considers cost efficiency, environmental impact,
and implementation feasibility criteria. This solution includes conservation measures and
groundwater options that could be available the 2015 solution, but replaces the relatively expensive
indirect reuse project with more cost effective reservoir expansions (Tussahaw Creek, Dog River), and
a new reservoir (Richland Creek). The 2020 contingency solution would require a lower upfront
capital requirement of ~$1.7B and would have an incremental unit cost of $460/MG, which is nearly
half the 2015 solution cost.

While the supply options for 2015 and 2020 are identified as contingencies, the Task Force
recommends that enhanced conservation, implemented through incentive-based programs, should
be pursued regardless of the outcome of Lake Lanier reauthorization. This program of enhanced
conservation is the basis for a set of Task Force recommendations on no regrets options to
implement immediately, along with a supporting set of policy considerations (detailed in Section 3.1).
There are three broad areas of additional conservation improvements that build on the Metro
Atlantas significant conservation progress to date, and are reflected in these recommended policies:
1. Institute mandatory data collection and reporting of key metrics to inform future planning
efforts. For instance, utilities would have to conduct standardized water loss audits.
2. Adopt higher water efficiency standards and incentive measures to increase conservation
effectiveness. (e.g., increasing incentives for fixture and soil meter retrofits.)
3. Link progress on conservation efforts to funding eligibility, low-interest loan qualifications,
and permitting applications to ensure implementation of measures.

The Contingency solutions recommended by the Task Force should only be pursued if they are
deemed to be absolutely essential, based on the outlook of tri-state negotiations, Lake Lanier

5
reauthorization efforts, and the appeal of Judge Magnusons order. Preference should be given to the
2020 contingency solution, if possible, and only if this action is required. In conjunction with the
2020 contingency solution, the Task Force also identified a set of policies that could support the
implementation of mandate-based conservation measures envisioned within that contingency
solution (detailed in Section 3.2), also to be considered only if necessary to the support a contingency
solution. However, the Task Force notes that the ability to implement either a 2015 or 2020 solution
in their stated timeframes would also be contingent on initiating the necessary technical studies and
permitting process swiftly, and implementation within these timeframes would not accommodate
any unforeseen delays.
2 INTRODUCTION
2.1 Background
On July 17 2009, U.S. District Judge Paul Magnuson issued a ruling holding that water supply was not
an authorized purpose of Lake Lanier. Additionally, Judge Magnuson determined that the US Army
Corps of Engineers (hereafter referred to as the Corps) operation of Lake Lanier for water supply
exceeded its authority under the Water Supply Act of 1958. Judge Magnuson concluded that, absent
further Congressional authorization, water supply operations at Lake Lanier must cease by mid-July
2012. That is, except for certain limited withdrawals that predate construction of the reservoir, all
withdrawals directly from Lake Lanier will be prohibited, and releases from Buford Dam to meet
downstream water needs will be severely curtailed.

In response to the ruling, the Governor outlined a 4-pronged strategy which consisted of (a)
appealing the ruling in court, (b) negotiating a mutually agreeable water allocation scheme with
Alabama and Florida, (c) pursuing Congressional reauthorization of Lake Lanier for water supply and
(d) developing a contingency plan, to be implemented if the Judges ruling were to take effect. The
Water Contingency Planning Task Force was created to evaluate to various options for a contingency
plan and make recommendations to the Governor.

Absent Congressional action or reversal on appeal of Judge Magnusons order, that order will create a
water supply shortfall for North Georgia in July 2012. The part of Judge Magnusons order that would
go into effect in July 2012 does not directly limit withdrawals from the river. That element of the
order, however, does enjoin the Corps operation of Buford Dam such that the reliable supply of
water available from the river will be severely curtailed. Although it is not currently possible to
predict with specificity how much water would actually be available for withdrawal from the river
under the operations required by the Judges order, the order did state that such operations in the
1970s yielded 230 Million Gallons per Day (MGD). The range of possible yields from the required
operations is wide, but 230 MGD appears to fall well within that range, and accordingly was used as
the assumed amount of available water for purposes of calculating the water supply shortfall.

6
Given this assumption, a net water shortfall was calculated to be approximately 250 MGD (on an
annual average basis) in the metro region (15 county region served by Metropolitan North Georgia
Water Planning District, hereafter referred to as Metro Water District) in 2012. This shortfall is
estimated by taking the difference between projected 2012 water demand, as published in the Metro
Water Districts Water Supply and Water Conservation Management Plan (published in May 2009,
hereafter referred to as the Metro Water Plan), and projected 2012 water supply under the scenario
that could occur should Judge Magnusons ruling take effect. This is illustrated graphically in Figure 1.
The projected shortfall of 250 MGD is a net shortfall across the entire metro region, subtracting from
the total shortfall the amount of estimated surplus in counties with excess water from other sources.
Relying on one possible interpretation of how the ruling would impact downstream communities, the
total shortfall for counties in deficit (while ignoring the counties with surplus) was estimated to be
approximately 280 MGD in 2012. This shortfall estimate of 280 MGD was used by the Water
Contingency Planning Task Force (hereafter referred to as the Task Force) for planning purposes, out
of conservatism. Using a similar approach and assuming that demand continued to grow as outlined
in the Metro Water Plan, the corresponding water shortfall in 2015 and 2020 were estimated to be
approximately 310 MGD and 350 MGD respectively. Clearly, the Judges ruling has a very significant
impact on water supply to the metro region.

Figure 1: Projected water shortfall in 2012 under Judge Magnusons ruling

400
600
800
1,000
1,200
2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035
Supply/Demand (AAD - MGD)
2006 permitted supply
Future demand
with planned
conservation
2035 planned permitted supply
Supply: impact of ruling
Net shortfall: ~250 MGD (AAD)
or 34% of demand
Note: supply based on ruling assumes sources other than Lake Lanier and Chattahoochee River are capped at current levels
Source: Metro North GA Water Supply and Water Conservation Management Plan (May 2009); Estimated data; Figures reported in Average Annual Day Million Gallons per Day (AADMGD)
Metro North Georgia Water Planning District supply
and demand forecast
Baseline
demand
Note: Total shortfall (deficit
counties only) ~280 MGD (AAD)

In response to this potential significant problem, the Task Force had two key objectives. First, to
develop a fact-base to educate business and community leaders on Georgia's water situation and the
implications of Judge Magnuson's ruling. Second, to define a time-driven action plan that prioritized

7
specific options and recommendations for conservation, supply enhancement, and water policy to
address the potential shortfall.

The Task Force, in order to fulfill its mission and scope, was directed by the Governors office to work
with a set of key operating assumptions:
Options were to be defined assuming that Judge Magnusons ruling remains in effect. Thus,
interbasin transfer options could not assume use of Lake Lanier to store incremental water
supply, as withdrawals from the lake would be restricted under the ruling
All types of options were to be considered for evaluation, without regard to legal or political
implementation challenges.
The geographic scope to be evaluated was focused on only those areas affected by the ruling.
Specifically, the scope was to be limited to only the ACF (Apalachicola Chattahoochee Flint)
basin, with a primary focus on the metro Atlanta region as the area most severely affected
Long-range water planning was to be outside the scope of the Task Force effort and instead
was to be addressed by the Comprehensive Statewide Water Management Plan and to be the
responsibility of existing Regional Water Planning Councils.
Existing long-range water supply and conservation plans and underlying data were to form
the Task Forces baseline. The potential water supply shortfall was to be defined by
incorporating already planned conservation savings. Therefore, Task Force conservation
savings were to be incremental to what is in the May 2009 Metro Water District Plan
The Task Force was to identify the timeframe by when the potential water shortfall could be
addressed, and the means to do so, i.e., with what supporting set of options. On the basis of
the Judges ruling and option evaluation, three relevant time horizons emerged - 2012: the
year when withdrawals from Lake Lanier end and the Corps operation of Buford Dam
changes, 2015: the earliest possible timeline when potential shortfall could be addressed
(based on option availability), and 2020: timeframe by which the shortfall could be addressed
with a broad suite of potential options (including reservoir and transfers). Note that these
timelines are based on the assumption that there are no significant delays to implementation
of options (e.g., permitting, technical studies, etc), and presume that decisions to implement
are made in a timely fashion.
2.2 Limitations on scope of study
The limitations of this study should be clearly understood. A thorough analysis of the shortfall and
potential solutions will require many months, perhaps years, to complete. Given the urgency created
by Judge Magnusons order, however, the Governor directed the Task Force to deliver this report
within six weeks. This time frame was essential in the event that action would need to be taken in the
2010 session of the General Assembly.

Accordingly, the contents of this report should be taken as initial findings and recommendations that
will provide a basis for further study and analysis. All yield and cost estimates are preliminary and are
likely to change with further analysis. Furthermore, projects have been studied on an individual basis

8
without considering the interaction between different projects; the yield of certain projects may not
be additive to others because of interactions not fully evaluated. Projects have also been assessed
without considering the logistics or cost of making water transfers within the metro region, and to
places where it may be the most needed. The Task Force focused exclusively on the total water supply
potentially available to the Metro Water District without addressing issues related to the distribution
or allocation of water within the District, or the impact of any alternatives on the use or ownership of
existing water resources infrastructure. These issues are significant for many reasonslogistical,
equitable, legal, and politicaland could in many cases be the decisive factor in determining whether
to pursue a project. The Task Force also did not presume to suggest how costs for these projects,
including conservation projects, should be allocated. These issues are substantial and would require
further study to provide for a more complete solution.

It should also be reiterated that the Task Force analyses focus only on the incremental gain over and
above existing water supply and conservation plans prepared by the Metro Water District, which
already provide for the implementation of aggressive water conservation measures.

3 RECOMMENDATIONS: SUPPORTING POLICIES AND ACTIONS
The Task Force defines supply and demand contingency options and also recommends a set of
policies and actions for consideration by the Governor and State Assembly. These recommendations
are divided into a set of policies to consider immediately (Section 3.1), and a set of potential policies
to consider as contingency measures (Section 3.2). The recommended policies to consider
immediately are solely conservation focused, because there are no supply-based contingency options
that require immediate policy action, although other near term implementation steps may be
required. Task Force recommendations are based upon those options evaluated and where
appropriate the Task Force provides general policy guidance. The Task Force does not intend to
provide prescriptive policy language. Note, as well, that all Task Force recommendations are set in
the context of the ruling, which creates a potential shortfall only in the Metro Water District. Under
certain considerations, these recommendations could have broader application and could be
considered for application outside the region. Section 3.2 contains additional policies identified
through the Task Force process, that may be worthy of consideration, but were not based upon the
Task Forces evaluation of specific options.

Several state and local agencies would play key roles in implementing these policies. The office of the
Governor, Georgia General Assembly, the Georgia Department of Natural Resources/EPD, GEFA, the
Metro Water District (including local governments and water utilities), and other executive agencies
such as the Georgia Soil and Water Conservation Commission, the Department of Community
Affairs, and the Georgia Forestry Commission, all would have active and critical roles in
implementing policies and in enforcement and oversight. The Regional Water Planning Councils

9
should also consider the recommendations and policies outlined in this report as relevant to their
regions and the state water plan.

3.1 Policy Recommendations to pursue now
The Task Force recommends a set of no regret conservation options which should be implemented
immediately, regardless of the ultimate outcome of the Lake Lanier ruling. These demand
management programs are generally cost-effective, and promote both short and long-term water
management goals. Specifically, the Task Force recommends that the Metro Water District pursue
more aggressive incentive-driven conservation programs and adopt more aggressive conservation-
pricing schemes, even if Lake Lanier is reauthorized for water supply use.

A detailed set of policies and actions are provided for each of the recommended conservation
options, categorized into the following sections:
General conservation principles
Enhanced efficiency programs (both residential and commercial, including programs for toilets,
showerheads, faucets, washing machines, spray rinse valves, and cooling towers)
New outdoor water usage policies (watering restrictions and rain sensor irrigation systems)
More multi-family sub-metering
Improved information for loss reduction programs
More aggressive conservation pricing
Renewed water education

These policy recommendations support entirely incentive-driven implementation plans. Again, focus
is on the Metro Water District but these recommendations could be considered for wider application
across the state.

General conservation principles
With respect to those general principles which help foster a culture of conservation, the Task Force
proposes that statutes be considered that reinforce certain principles:

Require minimum implementation of water conservation measures by embedding water
conservation implementation requirements in state permits, with active enforcement via
periodic reporting
Require adoption of real-time data collection for all water withdrawals, adoption of
compatible online data management systems and reporting practices, and publication of
water statistics for all users and use categories
Tie state investment in water supply and other types of funding to minimum levels of water
conservation implementation

10
- Increase state financial support grants and low interest loans for water and
wastewater infrastructure
Recommend that the state develop guidance or technical assistance programs for water
utilities, e.g. education on cost benefit analysis, conservation evaluation (i.e. AWE's
conservation tracking software)

Enhanced efficiency programs
The Task Force recommends that state and local governments and water utilities consider new rebate
programs or enhanced existing rebate and tax credit programs that would provide greater financial
incentives for individual water users to install and retrofit efficient fixtures and convert to water-
saving appliances. Specifically, the Task Force recommends that:

State and local government appropriate funds for residential retrofit rebate programs for
toilets, showerheads and faucet aerators
State and local governments and water utilities establish diverse rebate and tax credit
programs
- Expand rebate programs to all residential Water Sense appliances (e.g., washing
machines, dishwashers, etc)
- Expand rebate programs to include commercial spray rinse valves used in
commercial kitchens and restaurants, and commercial cooling towers

New outdoor water usage policies
To address discretionary outdoor watering demands, the Task Force recommends that state and
local governments appropriate funds for rebate programs to retrofit existing residential and
commercial landscaping irrigation systems with rain sensors

More multi-family sub-metering
To encourage better accountability of personal water usage in multi-family complexes, the Task Force
proposes that statutes be considered that requires state and local governments and water utilities to
provide rebate incentives to existing non-sub-metered multi-family complexes to install sub-meters.

Improved information for loss reduction programs
The Task Force recommends several policies related to general water loss data management and leak
abatement programs to minimize loss of Georgias water resources. These actions should be
implemented regardless of whether Lake Lanier is reauthorized or not. The goal of these policies is
not to set specific water loss targets, especially given the data quality in this area, but to prepare local
governments and water utilities for future evaluations of leak abatement programs and targets.
Specifically, the Task Force recommends that:

Every water utility conduct water loss assessments to IWA/AWWA (International Water
Association / American Water Works Association) standards.

11
- Audits to improve consistency of non-revenue loss data and terminology, and
enable better comparison of this benchmark across utilities and over time to assess
progress
- The utilization of standardized audits can be phased in with larger utilities
complying within 3 years
A funding program be developed provide financial assistance to water utilities for capital-
intensive projects related to decreasing water loss
- Direct GEFA to prioritize use of Clean Water and Drinking Water State Revolving
Funds for projects that reduce water loss
State and local government and industry associations assist in developing technical
assistance program to provide guidance to water utilities for leak abatement programs
- Technical guidance should be developed and water utilities given time to create and
implement a program based on utility size or service population
Every water utility develop a real water loss reduction program such as leak abatement
options to address actual water leaks (i.e. not billing or metering problems)
- Program can include leak detection and repair, valve exercising, and pressure
management
Every water utility develop a lost revenue recovery program
- Program to include metering techniques such as meter testing and replacement (for
all utility-owned meters including system and customer meters)
- Utility should commit personnel to maintain meter system to accurately capture
real versus apparent losses

More aggressive conservation pricing
To ensure the most effective conservation-based pricing rate structures, the Task Force recommends
that:

Every water utility conduct a detailed rate study, informed by accurate demand data, to be
used as the basis for setting effective rates on utility-level basis. Every water utility should:
- Identify key customer classes such as single family residential, multi-family
residential, and commercial users
- Maintain demand data for each customer class, such as (i) total number of
customers in each class, (ii) total number of customers with irrigation meters in
each class, (iii) total number of customers, total water volume sold and total billed
charges for water and sewer at each 1,000 gallon per month consumption increment
(For example, the total number of customers, total water volume sold and total
billed charges for users consuming between 5K - 6K gallons per month, and
similarly between 6K 7K gallons per month, etc.), for each month.
Effective residential conservation rate policies be implemented while providing sufficient
flexibility to water utilities to set rates that meet individual requirements (such as sufficient
funding, fair and equitable rates for local customers, bond requirements).

12
- Price per 1000 gallons at key consumption levels (5K, 10K, 15K gallons per month)
for every water utility in the Metro Water District to be comparable to the price
charged by other utilities in the rest of the Metro Water District (no less than 10%
of metro average price), while accounting for customer affordability. Data from the
GEFA rate study may be used for benchmarking. Utilities must assess the feasibility
of implementing the necessary change within 1 3 years.
- Volumetric tier endpoints should be consistent with consumer consumption
pattern; Minimum of three tiers with base tier addressing average winter use, Tier 1
allowing 1 day of irrigation per week, Tier 2 addressing all usage above Tier 1
- Price differential across tiers should be significant; Tier 1 price at least 50% above
base tier price, Tier 2 price at least 250% of base tier price
Every water utility educate consumers about conservation in their monthly bill
- Historical usage to be presented with comparison to average usage of population
served by the utility
- Water utilities to report water usage figures in gallons, to make reports more
intuitive and relevant to customers
Every water utility conduct a pricing audit to measure key performance indicators, at
minimum every 5 years, but recommended every 2 -3 years
- Comparison of absolute prices at key consumption levels with rest of metro area,
volumetric tier endpoints compared to consumer demand levels, degree of price
change across each tier

Enhanced water conservation education
Successful conservation efforts have robust education and public outreach programs. Therefore, the
Task Force recommends appropriate allocation of funding and resources to support existing
programs and create new programs in order to foster greater understanding of Georgias water
resources. Specifically the Task Force recommends that:

State and local governments provide funding to support state-wide water conservation
campaigns and public outreach programs
State and local government, in conjunction with water utilities and industry associations,
establish partnerships with local businesses to develop, fund and deliver conservation
education and communications programs.
3.2 Policy Recommendations in case of Contingency Plan requirements
In the event that Lake Lanier is not available for future water supply, the Task Force believes that
incentive based conservation would be insufficient to meet shortfalls and that mandate-driven
conservation measures could likely be a necessary component of contingency plans. The Task Force
provides a set of policies and actions for that eventuality, in conjunction with the recommended
contingency options. These policies are categorized into the following initiatives:

13
Mandatory efficiency programs (both residential and commercial, including programs for
toilets, showerheads, faucets, rain sensors, spray rinse valves, cooling towers)
Mandatory multi-family sub-metering/or fixture conversion
Mandated limits on outdoor water usage

The Task Force recommends that these alternative and more aggressive implementation approaches
- mandated options be considered only if Lake Lanier is not authorized for water supply.

Mandatory efficiency programs
Of all the contingency options, mandated efficiency programs, such as direct installation of efficient
fixtures and retrofit on resale, appear to be the most effective and received the highest support of by
the Task Force. The Task Force would endorse mandated efficiency programs, if necessary, for
contingency planning because of increased water savings, as compared to the incentive-based
programs. Specifically, under the conditions of the contingency plan, the Task Force would
recommend that statutes be considered that:

Updates plumbing code mandating HET toilets (1.28 gpf), low-flow showerheads and faucet
aerators in all new residential construction
Mandates water utilities to provide direct installations (water utility providers contract with
plumbing contractors to directly replace fixtures in all customer residences and businesses)
for all residential and commercial retrofits of:
- High-efficiency toilets (1.28 gpf)
- Low-flow showerheads and faucet aerators
- Rain sensors on irrigation systems on residential and commercial premises
- Spray rinse valves in commercial kitchens and restaurants
Requires residential retrofit on resale (mandatory retrofit with low-flow fixtures on all
properties at change of ownership)
Mandates higher standards for cooling towers, increasing their water efficiency from 2 to 5
cycles of concentration (which can result in ~40% water savings).

Mandatory multi-family sub-metering
If necessary, the Task Force recommends the required usage of sub-meters in multi-family
complexes, but provides alternative options where sub-metering retrofits are not cost-effective.
Specifically, the Task Force would recommend that statutes be considered to require all existing non-
sub-metered multi-family complex owners to either install sub-meters or pursue and demonstrate
conversion to efficient fixtures and appliances, if more cost-effective

Mandated limits outdoor water usage policies
Under the contingency options, the Task Force would recommend that policies be considered to
limit discretionary outdoor watering demands. Specifically the Task Force would endorse
consideration of statutes to mandate 'no day-time watering' restrictions, possibly defined as no
watering between 10am 4pm, for all residential and commercial landscape usages

14

3.3 Additional policies for consideration
In addition to those policy recommendations to pursue immediately, and those that would be
reserved only for contingency purposes, the Task Force also outlines a set of additional policies to
consider. The Task Force believes that these suggestions should be further evaluated, and an
assessment made of their merits for individual local governments and water utilities. The Task Force
suggests consideration of:

Greater general conservation program linking
Water utilities evaluate coupling water efficiency conservation programs and energy efficiency
conservation programs, potentially through partnerships with power utilities

More industrial and commercial efficiency programs
The State consider mandating industrial and commercial facilities to use performance-based
contracts for the operation of cooling tower and boilers

Further enhancement of local outdoor water usage policies
Local communities be empowered with the ability to manage their own drought response
programs, if more stringent than state requirements, based on local water conditions
Statute that requires in-service training and continued education of irrigation professionals
under national industry best practices and standards
Local government and water utility provide financial incentives for residence and businesses
to adopt drought-tolerant landscaping and Xeriscaping
Statute that mandates more efficient irrigation systems (e.g., rain sensors, moisture sensors)
for all commercial/residential landscape users

Enhanced water audits
Statute that requires commercial water audits for all businesses; and residential water audits for
high-use water customers (as defined by each water utility)

Consideration of voluntary inter-basin transfers into Metro District
Consider defining exceptions to current IBT prohibitions to enable sale (mutually acceptable
transfers) of surplus water from systems outside Metro District, where these are currently prohibited
by IBT ban

Additional water withdrawal authority
Statute to provide Georgia EPD with authority to regulate all surface and ground water withdrawals
between 10,000-100,000 gallons per day during droughts
4 RECOMMENDED CONTINGENCY SOLUTIONS

15
The Task Force contingency plan began with a focus on demand management, through conservation.
Conservation measures are environmentally friendly and often highly cost-effective, and are playing a
major role in the metro region today. These options should be an integral part of any contingency
solution. The range of potential water savings from additional conservation suggests that these
conservative programs are necessary but not sufficient in addressing the potential water shortfall.

Conservation measures are, however, the only options available by 2012, primarily because supply-
focused options such as reservoirs and transfers require time, both in pre-work (eg, permitting,
environmental impact studies) and in actual construction. Conservation options also require time to
yield savings, as they rely on consumer adoption and behavioral changes. However, the Task Force
believes that even if the Metro Water District were to pursue an extremely aggressive conservation
implementation approach through mandates that targeted the 2012 timeframe, the estimated yield
(~80 MGD) would still be insufficient to meet the projected shortfall (~280 MGD). Accordingly, the
Task Force believes that the Metro Water District does not have the ability to address a potential
water shortfall by 2012. This 2012 portfolio, were it to be pursued, would consist of water fixture
retrofits, conservation pricing, and a more comprehensive leak abatement program. The full detailed
set of these 2012 options is listed in Section 4.1.

There is a potential contingency solution that is available to address the 2015 shortfall, although it
would be very expensive and potentially very difficult to implement. Consequently, the Task Force
believes that this solution should not be pursued unless it is absolutely required. In addition to the
conservation options within the 2012 plan, the additional options available by 2015 include a number
of small, isolated groundwater systems (contributing ~15% of the portfolios yield). But more
importantly, it would feature a major reliance on an indirect potable reuse project (which contributes
~75% of the overall portfolio yield). Indirect potable reuse would involve recapturing treated
wastewater downstream from its original point of discharge, after dilution via sufficient contact with
naturally occurring water, such as lakes or rivers. It would then be pumped back to upstream
communities to replenish water supplies. This option is described further in Section 4.2.

This potential 2015 solution would require significant upfront capital of approximately $3 billion. It
would supply water at an average unit cost of $890/MG, which is twice as costly as a potential 2020
solution. Another way to gauge the cost of contingency solutions is to consider the impact on the
retail price of water. If one assumes that the incremental cost is borne (directly or indirectly) by
water providers, retail water costs across the Metro Water District would have to increase by
approximately 55% for the 2015 portfolio, versus ~32% for the 2020 portfolio. Clearly, the solution
could pose a significant near-term economic burden on water consumers.

By 2020, a broader set of more cost-effective potential solutions exists, and the Task Force believes
that such a portfolio is worthy of consideration, if required for contingency planning. These
components include supply enhancement options such as existing reservoir expansions and new
reservoir development, projects which require an estimated 8-12 years to come online. Because there
are a larger set of options available by 2020, there are also many ways one could prioritize options to

16
create potential water supply portfolios. One such portfolio could be based on cost efficiency alone.
Applying this method, the most cost-efficient portfolio could address the 350 MGD 2020 shortfall
through an upfront investment of approximately $2.3 billion, and an average unit cost of $410/MG.

Using this most cost-efficient portfolio as a starting point, the Task Force incorporated
environmental impact concerns and feasibility considerations to arrive at a recommended 2020
portfolio to address the shortfall. With an average unit cost of $460/MG and an upfront capital
requirement of approximately $1.7 billion, this portfolio would consist primarily of the conservation
measures and groundwater systems previously mentioned, plus four existing reservoir expansions
and one new reservoir build. Full details of options included can be found in Section 4.3, while the
process of developing this solution is discussed further in Section 5.2.

Table 1 summarizes key metrics such as yield and cost for the 2015 and 2020 contingency portfolio of
options. Note that there is no possible solution by 2012, and that the 2015 solution is nearly twice as
expensive as the 2020 solution. Also of note, the shortfall shown for 2015 is 310 MGD and for 2020,
350 MGD. These shortfall values assume Metro District demand follows long-term projections as per
the existing water plan. Implicitly, this assumes the region would not face demand reduction as a
result of the ruling.

Table 1: Summary of Potential 2015 and 2020 Solutions
2015 solution 2020 solution
Yield (MGD) ~340
(2015 shortfall is ~310)
~360
(2020 shortfall is ~350)
Capital Cost ($ million) ~3,060 ~1,660
Cost efficiency ($/MG) ~890 ~460
Total 50 year cost ($ million) ~5,035 ~2,940
Potential impact on Metro District weighted
average retail water rates (assuming costs
borne directly/indirectly by utilities)
~55% increase
(assuming ~$5/kgallons
base rate)
~32% increase

4.1 Description of 2012 option portfolio
When considering the challenge posed by Judge Magnuson's ruling, the first question to evaluate was
whether potential water shortfall in July 2012 can be addressed. As mentioned, the Task Force does
not believe that the Metro Water District can meet the potential supply gap by 2012, even with
extremely aggressive conservation measures, including drought-response level, full outdoor watering
bans.

17

Only conservation options would likely provide yield only by 2012, as they do not require the
planning and construction time of infrastructure-based options. Many conservation options,
however, still require ramp-up time, and could only yield a fraction of their potential savings by 2012.
For example, options such as conservation pricing, sub-metering, and use of more efficient fixtures
would require consumers to adopt the option and/or change their behavior, which could take several
years. Capture and control options, such as reservoirs, require significant pre-work, such as
permitting, technical design and environmental impact studies, which often take 3-4 years prior to
start of construction. Because of these significant lead times, most of these capture and control
options would not be available until 2020, except a small ground water project.

Figure 2: Aggressive implementation of conservation options insufficient to address 2012 gap

Figure 2 illustrates alternative conservation approaches, and demonstrates that conservation alone,
even under extremely aggressive scenarios, would be insufficient to meet the potential 2012 water
shortfall. The vertical axis represents potential savings in 2012 (MGD), with the dark green
designating incentive-driven water savings and the light green highlighting the additional yield
available through mandated conservation options. The first scenario on the left shows the estimated
impact from the range of conservation options identified by the Task Force; 26-79 MGD of water
savings by 2012. The hypothetical, middle scenario shows what one could achieve if one were to
increase marginal water prices on discretionary outdoor use (above 14,000 gallons per month) to
existing city of Atlanta levels. While the estimated water savings would increase, it would still not be
enough to close the gap. On the right is another hypothetical scenario, representing savings if
residential watering bans were enacted. Even under this mandatory conservation scenario, the

18
realized savings would not be sufficient to address the shortfall. Moreover, even if conservation
options could offset the shortfall in totals, actual conservation savings tend to be diffused across the
entire metro region. So, even that amount of conservation would not guarantee that shortfalls in
critically affected areas could be met. It is clear, however, that conservation efforts across all counties
of the metro region are critical to establish an overall culture of conservation, to demonstrate good
stewardship of a limited resource, and to benefit downstream users.

As stated in the introduction, conservation savings evaluated by the Task Force should be considered
as incremental to existing plans. Incremental conservation savings are somewhat limited because of
the degree of progress the Metro District has made and continue to makes. As shown in Figure 3,
Metro Atlanta (the 15-county area) has decreased per-capita usage 13 gallons/capita/day (or 8%)
between 2003 and 2006, to a level below that of many other metro areas.

Figure 3: Overall District water usage levels
1. State average; data not available for individual cities in AL
Note: Overall per capita is calculated by dividing total gallons of water produced by water provider by the population served, where total gallons of water produced includes use for residential,
commercial, industrial, irrigation, and non-revenue water
Source: Georgia EPD analysis with data collected from 2000 - 2008
Per capita public supply use, by metro areas showing
Metro ATL 2003 and 2006 actual usages
105
128
134
150
151
155
157
158
163
164
164
167
175
190
206
213
218
233
252
254
139
0 50 100 150 200 250
Las Vegas, NV
Columbia, SC
Alabama
1
Phoenix, AZ
Dallas, TX
Macon, Georgia
Charlotte, NC
Denver, CO
Albuquerque, NM
NW Florida Water Mment Dist, FL
Tuscon, AZ
Miami, FL
LaGrange, Georgia
Los Angeles, CA
Metro ATL- 2006 actual
St. Johns River Water Mment Dist, FL
San Antonio, TX
Metro ATL - 2003 actual
New York City, NY
Portland, OR
Seattle, WA
Gallons/capita/day

Considering the cost-effective and environmentally friendly nature of conservation options, the real
choice with conservation is not whether to include it in the solution, but rather, by what means to
implement it, namely via incentives or via mandates. For example, consumers might be provided
with tax incentives to replace their high flow toilets, or the state might mandate that all high flow
toilets in the Metro Water District are to be replaced in two years. Overall, an estimated additional
26 MGD can be saved by 2012 through incentives-based conservation.

In comparison, an additional 36MGD can be saved by pursuing mandated programs. There are two
key reasons for mandated programs having a higher yield. First, the estimated yield for incentive-
based conservation programs, as evaluated by the Task Force, does not include what is already
outlined in existing water plans. Key incentive-based conservation programs such as toilet retrofits,

19
showerheads and faucets, multi-family sub-metering etc. have already been set into motion by the
Metro Water Plan, thereby decreasing the size of the incremental opportunity. Second, significantly
higher market penetrations for conservation programs are likely to be achieved only through
mandates. For example, in case of multi-family sub-metering, a mandate is the only means to ensure
that 100% of multi-family buildings in the area opt for sub-meters; an incentive based approach
would generate lower levels of adoption. Figure 4 lists the conservation options available through
conservation 2012, under an incentive based approach. Detailed descriptions of these conservation
options considered may be found in Appendix III. (Note: based on their estimated cost efficiencies,
grey water reuse and pipeline replacement options, with cost efficiencies in excess of $15,000/MG,
were not included 2012 solution portfolio).

In addition, an effective and robust set of education and public outreach programs are essential to
fully realize the potential water savings through conservation. A key requirement for a public
education and awareness program is sufficient funding. The estimated cost of public education is
approximately $1 per person, or ~$4 million for the Metro Atlanta District in a 3-year effort to reach
the entire population. Even with this additional $4 million expenditure on education, which is
equivalent to additional cost over and above the cost of conservation programs, of $50-$100/MG
water saved, they are still highly cost effective.

Figure 4: Options available by 2012

20
4.2 2015 contingency portfolio
The potential water shortfall in 2015 arising from Judge Magnusons ruling could be addressed only by
a contingency solution that supplies water at an incremental average cost of approximately $890/MG.
The options that would constitute this relatively expensive solution are shown in Figure 5. This
contingency portfolio would consist primarily of isolated groundwater systems and a large relatively
expensive, indirect potable reuse project. As previously noted, the indirect potable reuse option
drives the majority of the cost of the 2015 portfolio, and there is little flexibility in the 2015
contingency portfolio solution, since indirect potable reuse is the only significant option that is
available in this timeframe. It is important to note that indirect potable reuse would not be part of
the lowest cost 2020 portfolio, if the Metro water district had more time to respond.

Figure 5: Options in 2015 contingency portfolio

But because the indirect potable reuse option is central to the 2015 portfolio, it is worth denoting
exactly what this option entails. Indirect potable reuse recaptures wastewater that has been diluted
with natural water from rivers and lakes, to provide water for drinking purposes. It is currently
practiced in the Metro District in both planned and incidental forms. But the 2015 solution would rely
on a dramatic expansion of this option by building an extensive network of pipes, and pumping the
water to upstream communities critically affected by the ruling. The map in Figure 6 provides an
overview of the pipe and pump infrastructure required to implement this indirect potable reuse
option. There would be three water intake points where wastewater that would have been mixed with
natural water would be withdrawn: Cedar Grove, Lake Jackson, and McGinnis Ferry. Cedar Grove
the major water intake location would be chosen 5 miles downstream of the further downstream
wastewater discharge location to allow for sufficient contact with natural water and thus ensure

21
sufficiently high wastewater quality. The pipes help deliver the pumped water back upstream to the
critically affected communities, where this water would enter existing water treatment facilities to
replenish the drinking water supply. These pipes across the various counties drive the high cost of
this option.

Figure 6: Indirect potable reuse infrastructure requirement
26 144200-01 TF Mtg 2-23 Nov-v22.ppt
Fulton
Forsyth
Fulton Camp Creek WRF
New Forsyth/Cumming
Lake Lanier WWTP
Bethelview Road WRF
Flowery Branch WPCP
Water treatment plants
Wastewater treatment plants
Storage locations
Buford Storage
Hall
Gainesville Linwood WRF
Gainesville Flat Creek WRF
Cobb
DeKalb
Atlanta Utoy Creek WRC
Cobb RL Sutton WRF
Cobb South Cobb WRF
Gwinnett Jackson
Creek WRF
Cobb Noonday
Creek WRF
Atlanta South
River WRC
DeKalb
Polebridge WPCP
Fulton Big
Creek WRF
Cobb Northwest
Cobb WRF
Atlanta RM Clayton WRC
Snapfinger
WPCP
Reuse water withdrawals
Cedar
Grove
Bellwood Quarry
DeKalb Scott
Candler WTP
Gwinnett Crooked
Creek WRF
Fulton Johns
Creek WRF
New Southeast Forsyth
WRF/Forsyth Reuse
F Wayne
Hill WRC
Gwinnett
Yellow
River WRF
2
1
m
ile
s
1
3
m
ile
s
2
1
m
ile
s
2
4
m
ile
s
1
7
m
ile
s
Gwinnett
5
4

m
i l
e
s
Lake Jackson
GA20
McGinnis
Ferry
Pipelines
Source: Technical Advisory Panel analysis;
Infrastructure requirement in the
6 critically affected counties:

The Indirect Potable Reuse project would also raise a number of concerns about implementation
feasibility. First, there would be risks concerning implementation timing, due to the need for
extensive technical design, permitting, processes of obtaining easements, and other factors. While
this option could possibly be implemented by 2015, any delay in these activities could jeopardize the
ability to implement this solution in a timely manner. Second, there would be significant funding
challenges to be addressed. The solution would have a high upfront capital need of approximately
$2.8 billion, and would include multiple entities in the Metro Water District. It would also be a
challenge to specify the necessary contracts and to establish a suitable governance structure to
manage the project. The option would also have the potential for significant environmental impact,
such as change in water quality levels and temperatures, which could necessitate additional
mitigation costs. Further, there would be questions about the degree to which consumers would
embrace the concept of reusing water for potable purposes. Clearly, there would be significant non-
financial considerations to be taken into account if this option were to be implemented.
4.3 Recommended 2020 portfolio of options
If required, the Task Force recommends a portfolio of options to address the water shortfall by 2020.
This portfolio would better balance cost-effectiveness and feasibility considerations than the 2015

22
portfolio. The primary difference between this portfolio and the 2015 contingency portfolio would the
expansion of four existing reservoirs (Tussahaw Creek, Dog River, Big Haynes Creek, and Etowah
River Dam 1) and development of one new reservoir (Richland Creek). These more cost effective
options would take the place of the indirect potable reuse project. Figure 7 summarizes the options
that would comprise this portfolio, along with their associated cost and yield estimates.

Figure 7: Options in recommended 2020 portfolio

The recommended 2020 portfolio would feature aggressive implementation of retrofit and efficiency
programs. Specifically, toilet retrofits, showerhead and faucet retrofits, multi-family sub-metering,
and spray rinse valve retrofits would be included, and implemented through a direct installation
program, rather than relying solely on incentives to encourage adoption. Rain sensor and cooling
tower programs would be included under a more aggressive, but incentive-based implementation
approach. The 2020 portfolio would also include critical reservoir expansion options (~156 MGD),
based on their relatively higher cost-efficiency and relatively lower environmental impact concerns
(as compared to new reservoirs).

The Task Force believes that an incentive-based conservations approach could be readily
implemented, independent of the potential impact of Judge Magnusons ruling. And the Task Force
would endorse a mandate-based approach only as a contingency solution. More detail regarding Task
Force deliberations on these options can be found in Section 6.1.

Note that no interbasin transfer options are recommended as part of the 2020 contingency portfolio.
This is primarily a result of their high relative cost, as well as due to Task Force member input on

23
preferred solutions, and an assessment of implementation feasibility. Their non-inclusion does not
imply that transfers are never warranted, or that a transfer option could not address a different
situation. But, for purposes of the 2020 portfolio, based on both cost efficiency and feasibility, there
were superior alternatives to interbasin transfers. It is also possible that some other future transfer
options, not explicitly evaluated by the Task Force (e.g., sale of surplus water), may prove cost-
effective and worthy of consideration.
5 METHODOLOGY
The Task Force employed a systematic option prioritization process in order to develop the
recommended contingency solutions. This enabled on initial, broad assessment of many options,
followed by increasingly detailed evaluation of a subset of preferred options. Through this process,
key options and potential solution portfolios were first identified. Task Force member input was
collected through specific surveys, to gage support for alternative portfolios and to converge on
recommended solutions. This section describes the methodology relied upon to generate the
primary and alternative 2020 solutions. The following section describes the feedback received from
the Task Force on principles, and on portfolios and options, and the implications for the 2020
contingency solution recommended.
5.1 Task Force solution development process
The Task Force followed a three step process to define, evaluate, and prioritize options, as shown in
Figure 8.

Figure 8: Task Force solution development process
Input gathered
from
Options
previously
considered in
GA planning
Options used
in other
regions
Taskforce
members'
input
Define Evaluate Prioritize
Recommended
solutions
No regret
moves
Contingency
options
Consolidate
all
potentially
applicable
options for
evaluation
Estimate
high-level
cost and
water
savings for
subset
Prioritize
solutions
Inputs
Full set of
potential
options

24
In the first step, the full set of potential options were defined from existing water plans, options
considered by other regions, input from Task Force members, technical advisors, and various groups.
The Task Force considered these options in three broad categories. The first was existing programs or
options that could be more quickly or broadly implemented. For example, this could mean phasing
out high-flush toilets in the Metro Area within the next 5 years, instead of according to a 10-year plan.
The second broad category was previously-identified but not implemented options. These ideas may
have been passed over for implementation previously because they were not necessary, though they
could potentially be valid in the context of Judge Magnusons ruling and its consequences (e.g.,
options deemed to be too costly before could prove to be cost-effective under assumptions that
reflect the impact of the ruling). The third broad category was new ideas that were not previously
assessed. These ideas were sourced from best practices followed by other regions' and input from the
Task Force members. Examples of such ideas include use of non-potable ground water for outdoor
watering in select location and desalination.

In the second step these options were evaluated. This involved making estimates of high-level costs
and yields for a subset of these options. Because the scope and compressed timeline of the Task Force
effort, it is important to recognize that these estimates of cost and yield include a range of
uncertainty. A precise assessment would have required many months of detailed technical design,
and hydrology studies that were outside the Task Force scope. However, the estimates are
comparable across options, are based upon the use of common estimation methodologies and
standard input assumptions, where appropriate, across options. For example, all options employed
standard methodologies for reservoir yield determinations, water transport costs and treatment costs
(refer to Appendix IV for details).

For all options, initial capital costs (construction, installation, program rollout, etc) and ongoing
operating expenses were estimated. Where possible, capital and operating costs were defined per
phase or process- for example, for Aquifer Storage and Recovery (ASR) options, costs were
estimated for initial treatment, injection, extraction, and re-treatment phases. Cost scale factors
were applied where appropriate, (eg, water treatment, pipeline costs) to adjust unit costs for option
size. Project lifetimes were assumed based upon the duration of the option (generally 50-year
lifetimes were assumed) and total costs over project lifetimes were summed in 2010 dollar terms (ie,
present value). These total costs were applied against total expected lifetime yields (in Average
Annual Day terms- AAD) to obtain the $/MG cost efficiency metric. This cost metric enables
comparison across different types of options, with different cost profiles (upfront capital cost loaded
versus steady operating costs every year)

Figure 9 provides a summary of the key feasibility considerations used to evaluate options (details on
how each option fares against these criteria can be found in the Appendix III.) Additionally, options
were also classified as "no regrets" (i.e., pursue irrespective of the ruling) or "contingency options"
(i.e., those to pursue only if the judges ruling were to take effect), based on Task Force member
survey input. Details on these options are presented in Section 6.2.

25
Figure 9: Options key feasibility considerations
5.2 Primary and Alternate 2020 portfolios
The Task Force also relied on a similar prioritization process, which as depicted in Figure 10, to
identify Primary and Alternate portfolios. This practically pertains only to the 2020 contingency
solution, as there were not multiple viable options to address the water shortfall prior to this. By
2020, however, there should be a broad set of potential contingency options available, requiring
prioritization of specific options. The Task Force believed it was important to consider various 2020
alternatives, in part because of key uncertainties in terms of implementation feasibility.

Figure 10: Defining the primary and alternate 2020 portfolios

26
The starting point for these alternatives was the 2020 lowest cost option portfolio. This portfolio was
determined by a simple ranking of the cost efficiency of all options evaluated (See Figure 11). Cost,
yield, and timing estimates were generated by technical advisors and validated with local water
professionals. The lowest cost options that filled the gap were selected in sequence. Note that this
portfolio contains the Lake Burton interbasin transfer option, based on its estimated cost efficiency.

Figure 11: Options in the lowest cost 2020 portfolio

At this point in the process, Task Force members were asked to provide ratings through a survey
(described in Section 6), and to summarize implementation feasibility considerations (as described in
Figure 9), and to apply them to these options. Task Force members were asked their level of support
(through a 5- point scale) for the options, as well as whether they would continue to support the
option even in the event Lake Lanier were reauthorized.

Two resulting portfolios emerged from these qualitative considerations, termed primary and
alternate 2020 portfolios. These alternatives differ primarily on the mode of conservation (i.e. the
desired extent of incentive-driven options vs. mandates), and the mix of reservoir expansions vs. new
builds. The recommended 2020 portfolio of options was then designed based on Task Force feedback
on these primary and alternate portfolios.

The set of options that make up the primary 2020 portfolio are shown in Figure 12. There are two key
changes relative to the lowest cost portfolio of options: First, the Lake Burton interbasin transfer
option was removed as it was deemed to pose significant implementation challenges. Second, a leak
abatement option was included despite its high cost, as it received very high support from Task Force
members. As a result of these changes, the primary portfolio which the Task Force recommends

27
would address the 2020 water shortfall at an average unit cost of approximately $470/MG, with an
upfront capital requirement of around $2 billion.

Figure 12: Options in the primary 2020 portfolio

The logic underlying alternate portfolio, shown in Figure 13, would be to further enhance
implementation feasibility and minimize environmental impact. Specifically, the portfolio would
achieve this by incorporating more aggressive (mandated) retrofit programs (~28 MGD incremental
yield) and increased incentives for rain sensor retrofits (3 MGD) and by prioritizing reservoir
expansions over new reservoirs. Thus, the option of building a new reservoir NW of Forsyth would be
excluded in favor of the Etowah River Dam No. 1 expansion project. The resulting cost-efficiency of
this portfolio would be approximately $460/MG. This portfolio would marginally more cost-efficient
than the primary portfolio, because the more aggressive conservation options are more cost-
effective relative to capture options, and provide greater yield.

28
Figure 13: Options in the alternate 2020 portfolio and comparison with primary

32 144200-01 TF Appendix V.ppt
~360 ~1,660 Wtd. Avg. ~460 ~370 ~1,970 Wtd. Avg. ~470
27 17 1,200 Leak abatement 27 17 1,200 Leak abatement
80 620 580 Richland creek reservoir (larger) 80 620 580 Richland creek reservoir (larger)
41 350 615 Etowah River Dam No. 1 expansion 88 660 510 New reservoir NW of Forsyth
47 270 390 Big Haynes Creek reservoir expansion 47 270 390 Big Haynes Creek reservoir expansion
15 25 350 Toilet retrofits (direct install program) 1 25 375 Toilet retrofits (increased rebate program)
2 3 375 Palmetto GW system 2 3 375 Palmetto GW system
5 10 375 Suwanee GW system 5 10 375 Suwanee GW system
7 11 345 Bartow county GW system 7 11 345 Bartow county GW system
6 7 325 Spalding county GW system 6 7 325 Spalding county GW system
10 8 250
Showerheads and faucets
(direct install program)
1 8 300
(increased rebate program)
48 230 300 Dog river reservoir expansion 48 230 300 Dog river reservoir expansion
6 5 300 Lawrenceville GW system 6 5 300 Lawrenceville GW system
20 64 260 Tussahaw Creek reservoir expansion 20 64 260 Tussahaw Creek reservoir expansion
5 6 170 Cooling towers (required standards) 3 6 170 Cooling towers (rebate program)
3 6 170
Multi family sub-metering (retrofit 100%
existing units)
2 6 165
existing homes)
15 8 155
GW for non-potable use (parks, golf courses,
etc)
15 8 155
GW for non-potable use (parks, golf
courses, etc)
6 14 125 Conservation pricing 6 14 125 Conservation pricing
2 1 110 Spray rinse valves (direct install program) 0.3 1 115 Spray rinse valves (rebate program)
6 6 70
Rain sensors
(retrofit 50% existing systems)
3 6 60
Rain sensors
7 0 10 Water restrictions (no daytime watering) 7 0 10 Water restrictions (no daytime watering)
Yield
(MGD)
Capital
cost
($M)
Cost
efficiency
($/MG) Option
Yield
(MGD)
Capital
cost
($M)
Cost
efficiency
($/MG) Option
Alternate 2020 portfolio Primary 2020 Portfolio
Note: Changes from "primary" to alternate" portfolio include:
1) Most aggressive retrofit/efficiency program implementation, and
2) Etowah River Dam 1 expansion instead of New Reservoir NW of Forsyth

29
6 SUMMARY OF TASK FORCE FEEDBACK
Feedback was collected from Task Force members throughout the process, on many levels, and it
directly informed the development of these recommendations. The following section summarizes
Task Force feedback on principles of prioritization, solution portfolios, and individual options.
6.1 Summary of Task Force feedback on principles
Task Force members were surveyed on their level of support for set of principles that could be used
for option prioritization, before they were asked about any individual options. This was done to
clarify the underlying logic that Task Force members, as individuals and as sub-groups (business,
elected officials, conservation, etc) would prefer to be used to evaluate and prioritize solutions.
Figure illustrates the of Task Force responses on each principle.

Figure 14: Distribution of Task Force responses on support for key prioritization principles

The Task Force was in fairly strong agreement that if given the choice, conservation measures should
be implemented via incentives rather than mandates. There was also consensus on the principle that
both cost effectiveness and environmental impact should be balanced when arriving at a
recommended portfolio of options. Further, to address the immediate shortfall situation, most Task
Force members felt that temporary transfers to an affected area would be acceptable. However,
temporary transfers only apply to system interconnections, or specific reservoirs which could enable

30
sharing water from an area which currently has a surplus. Large, infrastructure-intensive interbasin
transfers cannot be temporary because they would not be economically feasible. There were,
however, several principles on which opinions diverged. For example, there were considerable
differences within the Task Force on whether policy control should rest at the local or state level, and
whether or not long-term inter-basin transfers should be allowed.

Figure 15 shows a different summary of Task Force feedback on principles. It summarizes the degree
to which, Task Force members affiliated with different groups, tended to support the key
prioritization principles. In general, there was consensus across most groups, although the
conservation group affiliated members often expressed opinions differing from other groups. It is
useful to understand the degree of endorsement for various prioritization principles by different
groups, as well as the potentially divergent viewpoints that could be encountered about key options,
both within the Task Force and more broadly. These viewpoints also underscore the key tradeoffs
that should be considered when choosing to implement various options.

Figure 15: Level of support for key prioritization principles by various sub-groups

6.2 Summary of Task Force feedback on portfolios
Task Force members also provided feedback through additional surveys, on the various portfolios of
options previously described. In general, the Task Force indicated high levels of support for both the
primary and alternate 2020 portfolios. There was also a consensus among Task Force members that

31
more could be done via conservation measures, although differences in opinion did emerge over the
method of implementation (i.e., incentives versus mandates).

When asked directly to choose one portfolio to endorse as a 2020 contingency solution, Task Force
members leaned toward the alternate portfolio, with mandated conservation measures, at a slightly
higher rate than toward primary portfolio (the margin of difference was 4 responses from a total of
58). Additional comments indicate that while almost all Task Force members recognized the need
for, and are willing to endorse mandates in a truly "dire" situation, most feel strongly that initial
implementation should be incentive-based. Furthermore, most Task Force members recognized that
an optimal approach includes a blend of mandates and incentives for specific options, rather than an
all or nothing approach.

When asked about the conditions necessary to secure their endorsement for specific portfolio
solution, most Task Force members cited the need for further, detailed analyses of potential impact
to downstream resources. Additionally, many encouraged follow-on evaluation of the potential cost-
benefit of developing additional reregulation capacity on the Chattahoochee River below Buford Dam
(e.g. dredging Morgan Falls reservoir). These items are discussed in more detail in Section 7 of this
report.

In terms of the 2015 portfolio of contingency options (dominated by the indirect potable reuse
option), Task Force support was very mixed. These options that could potentially address the gap by
2015 were generally viewed as costly and impractical. A comment from one Task Force member
summarized the overall thoughts on this potential solution portfolio; Indirect potable reuse is a very
expensive way to do what we're already doing drawing water out of the ACF and putting it back
after using and treating it. The Task Force supports this portfolio only as an absolute contingency if
required to meet timing constraints.

6.3 No-regret and contingency options
In addition to a survey of Task Force preferences on alternative 2020 portfolios, Task Force members
were also surveyed on their views on specific options. As summarized in Section 5.1, the Task Force
relied on survey results to identify no-regret and contingency options. On the chart in Figure 16,
each option is plotted based on two attributes: 1) the option's average level of support (as indicated
by respondents' rating), and 2) the options average level of support even assuming Lake Lanier
reauthorization (as indicated by the percent of respondents who chose "implement even with Lanier
reauthorization" on the survey).

Through this lens, the Task Force identified those options in the upper right portion of the chart as
No-regrets (i.e. they earn relatively high support and most Task Force members would support them
even with reauthorization). Options in the top left quadrant are generally well-supported, but only in

32
the event that Lake Lanier is not reauthorized. These are classified as contingency options. Any
options falling below the horizontal line are generally viewed as unfavorable.

Clearly, incentive-driven conservation measures stand out as no-regret options. These include toilet
retrofits, showerhead and faucet retrofits, cooling tower programs, and conservation pricing.
Reservoir expansions have the highest support among contingency options, followed by new
reservoirs, groundwater systems and, then, indirect Potable Reuse. It is also noteworthy that
additional conservation measures, including leak abatement and mandated retrofits, have relatively
high support. In the case of leak abatement, the recommended actions on mandatory data collection
and reporting and utility plan development were endorsed as no-regret options for immediate
consideration.

Figure 16: Assessment of no-regret and contingency options through TF survey results

6.4 Alternative views on key types of options
As one might expect, for many issues there was not complete alignment among Task Force members
views. A key role of the Task Force is to highlight those areas of differences and summarize
alternative perspectives for consideration by policy-makers. This section presents alternative
viewpoints on the major sub-sets of options. This is a considerably distilled summary. The
compendium of Task Force members comments and submissions is in the Appendix VI.

Conservation efficiency programs:

33
Conservation efficiency programs include options such as toilet retrofits, showerheads and faucets,
outdoor watering restrictions, etc. A full list of conservation efficiency programs evaluated can be
found in Appendix III. For these measures, there is a consensus that they should be integral to the
overall solution. However, there are diverging viewpoints on whether these options should be
implemented via mandates or incentives. As an example, discretionary outdoor water use can be
controlled via tiered pricing as a form of incentive, or be completely banned as was done during the
drought. Proponents of a mandate-based implementation cite the opportunity to realize higher yields
with minimal environmental impact as the key rationale. On the other hand, those supporting an
incentive-based implementation place more weight on the higher quality-of-life associated with
incentive based solutions.

In addition, some proponents of conservation advocate that all potential demand-management
options should be considered before any supply options, including those conservation options with
potentially low yields and/or high unit costs. For example, residential greywater recycling could
reduce potable water use (20-25 MGD) but it is not included in the recommended portfolio due to its
estimated unit cost (~$15,000/MG). Some Task Force members still feel that this option is worth
considering. Further, there are a number of lower yield potential options, (e.g., air-cooled ice-
machines, x-ray machine upgrades) which were identified by some Task Force members but not
investigated in detail. Other Task Force members cite the need to optimize scarce resources (i.e.,
funding, enforcement personnel, etc) and therefore suggest pursuing only those conservation options
with the highest potential return.

Conservation pricing:
There is general support for the conservation pricing option, as being a cost effective and relatively
easy to implement conservation measure. However, there are some Task Force concerns around the
overall degree of price change that is feasible without severe consumer backlash. Furthermore, some
Task Force members point out that any price change would need to preserve the affordability of
water for consumers, since it is fundamental to quality of life. There were also some concerns
regarding the timeframe for implementation. A significant price increase may need to be
implemented over multiple years in small price increments, depending on the appetite that
consumers have for price increases in any given year. This could potentially lead to delays in realizing
water savings.

Indirect Potable Reuse:
Reactions to the Indirect Potable Reuse option are mixed. On the one hand, some Task Force
members believe it is the only available option that can address the shortfall by 2015. Further, some
point out that it is currently practiced in the Metro Water District and the proposed option is just an
expansion of existing practice. However, there are also substantial concerns among many other Task
Force members over the high cost of implementation and implementation feasibility, as discussed in
Section 4.2.

Reservoir creation and expansion:

34
Capture options such as new reservoirs and reservoir expansion receive broad support as contingency
options. Those supporting these options tend to argue that they lend themselves to providing long-
term water supply stability to the region in addition to resolving contingency issues, which in turn
helps economic development. Additionally, most of these options are regarded as relatively cost-
effective. There is another school of thought within the Task Forces, however, that these options
should only be considered to be last resort measures, owing to the associated environmental
impact. However, there is general agreement that reservoir expansions would have lower
environmental impact, when compared to new reservoir builds. Additionally, there are concerns that
reservoirs would adversely impact the amount of water that would be available for downstream
communities. At minimum, the Georgia EPD in-stream flow requirements would need to be met by
each proposed reservoir option.

Interbasin transfers:
There are substantial differences of views on the long-term interbasin transfer options that were
evaluated by the Task Force. Some Task Force members envision a regional water-planning model
where water supply would be managed for the entire system as a whole, as opposed to localized
regions. Interbasin transfer options become a key ingredient of this vision. Other Task Force
members oppose these options, and cite the significant implementation challenges that they pose,
such as the need for legislative change, the degree of environmental impact etc. Additionally,
interbasin transfers could benefit some users at the expense of others. The specific impact, of course,
would depend on the degree of return flows that are mandated under the implementation regime
and their precise location.

Those Task Force opinions were also informed by a rich variety of official comment and submissions
to the Task Forces, a compendium of all official comments and submissions to the Task Force is
available in Appendix VI.
7 TOPICS PENDING FURTHER EVALUATION
There are three main areas where the Task Force felt that additional evaluation and analysis were
required to reach conclusions but these analyses were beyond the scope and timeline of the Task
Force effort. The first is a more quantitative assessment of the net downstream flow impacts from
pursuing sets of contingency options, an issue raised by several Task Force members. The second is a
more thorough determination of cost and yield for certain options, where the Task Forces high- level
assessments may not prove adequate and an objective assessment of these topics would require
detailed technical analyses that would require significant time. And the third area relates to the
suggestions the Task Force received to consider the creation of a regional water authority.
7.1 Determination of downstream flow impact
The set of options evaluated by the Task Force would have varying degree of impact on the amount of
water available to downstream users. For example, while conservation programs may have no impact

35
or even a positive downstream impact, capture measures would result in reduced downstream flow
(the degree of reduction is very case specific), and transfer options could benefit a set of downstream
users at the expense of others, depending on the specific location and amount of return flows. Given
the scope and expedited time from the Task Force effort, only basic steps were taken to account for
downstream impact in the option evaluation process. For example, technical advisors incorporated
existing standards, such as the Georgia EPD minimum in-stream flow requirement, to ensure that
adequate water flow is preserved. Further, the yield and cost estimates for various options included
provisions for environmental mitigation.

However, prior to implementing major capture or transfer options it would also be necessary to
perform a detailed due-diligence evaluation that takes into account the net impact of implementing
multiple options, accounting for all minimum flow requirements, and the impact of Judge
Magnuson's ruling on the Corps operating regime. This analysis would need to be done by the
relevant Regional Water Planning Council in association with Georgia EPD, prior to implementing
any option. Further, applying a standard minimum in-stream flow requirement to all existing
reservoirs could change total potential yield available, as well potentially impacting the net
downstream flows.
7.2 Additional options requiring more detailed evaluation
In general, an objective assessment of certain options would require detailed technical analyses that
would require significant time and were beyond the scope of the Task Force. For example, modeling
the hydrology of the Chattahoochee River, downstream of Buford Dam, is essential to assess the net
downstream flow impact of implementing options, and to estimate the yield of certain supply options
(Morgan Falls dredging, increasing supply through better water treatment standards). In addition,
this assessment could require key data that is currently unavailable. For example, the implication of
Judge Magnusons ruling on (a) future Corps operation of the Buford Dam (essential for developing
the hydrology model), and (b) permitted river withdrawals for counties downstream of the dam
(necessary to assess the potential for transferring surplus water, if available, between counties), was
information unavailable to the Task Force.

Morgan Falls Dredging
The Task Force recommends further detailed analysis, beyond the scope of this preliminary study, to
determine the potential benefit, and associated cost efficiency, which could be realized by dredging
the reservoir behind Morgan Falls Dam (Bull Sluice Lake). Precise levels of possible incremental yield
depend largely on a number of factors, including underlying assumptions regarding Corps operating
procedures with respect to peak hydropower releases. Initial indications suggest that dredging ~1,000
acre feet of sediment could potentially create significant incremental yield, anywhere from 0 to 130
MGD depending on many other factors. Fully understanding the potential benefit of this option, and
how it compares to other options evaluated, requires a detailed analysis to include items such as (1)
modeling hydrology of the Chattahoochee River below Buford Dam given an understanding of future
Corps operating policies, (2) validation or update of historically reported cost estimates, and (3)

36
determination of expected duration of benefits achieved (i.e. lifetime of option). There are also
substantial feasibility challenges and environmental risks that would also need to be addressed
before proceeding further.

Increased water treatment levels and potential supply implications
The minimum flow requirement at Peachtree Creek is dictated by a set of constraints such as
dissolved oxygen levels. If the binding constraint to the minimum flow requirement is determined,
water treatment plants could be upgraded to treat water to a standard that alleviates the constraint,
thereby lowering the minimum flow requirement and creating additional supply. The cost associated
with the upgrade depends on what constraint is being addressed. In theory, this process can be
repeated to alleviate a set of constraints up to the point where cost efficiency no longer available. A
detailed evaluation of this option would require a modeling effort by Georgia EPD to simulate the
hydrology of the Chattahoochee River below Buford Dam, would be based on assumptions of how the
Corps would operate the dam, and would function in existing water treatment standards.

37
System interconnections/Purchase of surplus water
Surplus water available in counties within and surrounding the Metro Water District could
potentially be purchased by counties facing a water shortfall, if system interconnections facilitate the
transfer. On the basis of inputs received by the Task Force, it is unclear at this point as to (1) which
counties would have surplus water, and (2) how much surplus water would be available in 2012. The
availability of surplus water would depend on future growth potential for each county as well as the
possible implications of Judge Magnusons ruling on permitted river withdrawals. Further, this water
would likely be available only on the basis of short-term contracts. Additionally, there are challenges
in transferring any available surplus water to counties in need. In some instances, the existing
infrastructure may be unsuitable for large scale transfer of water. There are also issues relating to
water chemistry and water treatment compatibility that might need to be addressed. Even though
these options are unlikely to be long-term solutions, however, they could be evaluated further to
satisfy short-term needs for water.

Commercial user focused conservation programs
While the many efficiency programs were evaluated for residential users, commercial conservation
program potential was not evaluated as fully. The primary limitation is the lack of robust commercial
water use data by user and usage categories. This data gap complicates rigorous opportunity sizing.
Moreover, given the larger scale of commercial facilities, it is possible that options which appear cost
inefficient in residences (eg, greywater reuse) to be viable in some commercial settings. There is
potentially an opportunity to validate the cost efficiency of such programs and define targeted
incentives.

Likewise, there could potentially be an opportunity to tailor conservation pricing to commercial
accounts as a means to motivate conservation and process improvements. One potential concept is
budget-based account pricing where marginal rate structures would be tailored to specific
commercial accounts, based on account-specific historical usage levels. The latter opportunity could
require enhanced water utility billing capabilities, requiring a more informed cost/benefit assessment

Stormwater Reuse
Stormwater reuse refers to the practice of storing stormwater runoff in large surface ponds and
subsequently using that as a source of water for non-potable use, typically irrigation. The capture of
stormwater was partially addressed through the reservoir pump storage options evaluated by the
Task Force. The pump storage options envisioned river water being pumped at high flows (typically
during and after storm events) for storage and subsequent use. However, Metro Water District,
regional water planning council and/or Georgia EPD could consider conducting a more complete
cost/benefit analysis that accounts for the benefits of reducing urban water runoff. Findings from a
Stormwater Reuse study commissioned by Texas Water Development Board
(http://www.twdb.state.tx.us/iwt/reuse/projects/stormwater.html; due Dec 09/Jan 10) could
potentially be leveraged.

Rainwater Harvesting

38
Rainwater harvesting involves localized capture and storage of rainwater for irrigation and non-
potable indoor uses. Preliminary analysis suggests that residential application of this concept is
potentially expensive, with cost efficiency in excess of $10,000/MG (accounting for upfront
installation cost as well as periodic refurbishment and operating cost over a 50 year life; detailed cost
and yield assumptions can be found in Appendix III). However, there could be potential to apply this
concept at commercial establishments, with more cost effective applications. The cost and yield for
commercial use is highly site specific. Metro Water District, Regional Water Planning Councils,
and/or Georgia EPD could consider a more detailed analysis that evaluates the true potential for this
option, based on the pattern of rainfall in the metro region. The following issues could also be given
consideration: (1) minimum water quality guidelines and standards for rainwater use (2) treatment
methods for indoor use of rainwater (3) appropriate cross-connection safeguards for indoor use of
rainwater in conjunction with existing municipal water supply, and (4) minimum requirements for
the option to be a viable alternative. For example, the Texas Water Development Board recommends
this option only for facilities with 10,000 square feet or greater in roof area.

7.3 Regional governance model
Third, there was some input to the Task Force suggesting that a feasibility study should be conducted
to assess the merits of establishing a Regional Water Entity, which could consolidate some or all
service delivery functions of all water utilities in the Metro District. Such an entity could facilitate
funding and implementation of regional infrastructure projects, for example. It was also suggested
that Regional Water Planning Councils explore the establishment of county consortium to facilitate
the sale of surplus water from surface and groundwater resources in their regions. This evaluation
was not in the scope of the Task Force effort, since it addresses a broader issue of governance in the
context of state wide water planning efforts, and was not directly linked to developing a contingency
plan to address potential water shortfall in the region.

8. Conclusion
The key objective for the Task Force was to define a time-driven action plan prioritizing specific
options and recommendations for conservation, supply enhancement. To that end, the Task Force is
recommending a set of policies for immediate consideration as well as a set of policies and
contingency options to be considered only if absolutely essential.

Policies for immediate consideration include three broad areas of additional conservation
improvements: Instituting mandatory data collection and reporting of key metrics to inform future
planning efforts (eg, utilities would have to conduct standardized water loss audits), adopting higher
water efficiency standards and incentive measures to increase conservation effectiveness. (e.g., more
aggressive conservation pricing, increased incentives for fixture retrofits.), and linking progress on
conservation efforts to funding eligibility, low-interest loan qualifications, and permitting

39
applications to ensure implementation of measures. These actions help reinforce the culture of
conservation in Georgia and would continue the outstanding progress made in the last several years.

Policies for consideration as contingency measures include mandated conservation program (eg,
direct install programs for fixture upgrades, time of day watering restrictions, retrofit on resale). The
Task Force also identified contingency solutions for 2015 and 2020 timeframes, based upon the
expected availability of varying options. A large indirect potable reuse project defines the 2015
contingency solution, whereas the 2020 solution incorporates more cost effective reservoir
expansions and while both contingency solutions are capital intensive and pose significant
incremental costs, the 2020 solution is roughly half as costly per gallon of yield. Based on this
significant cost difference, if a contingency plan is required, the Task Force recommends pursuing
the 2020 solution if possible.

Going forward, the contingency plan will be evaluated in context of the Governors overall 4-prongs
strategy to identify whether and when to begin implementation. The near-term policy
recommendations should be considered for incorporation into the states general water management
plan.

All Task Force analyses demonstrate clearly that replacing Lake Lanier as a water source would pose
significant incremental economic burdens and environmental impacts. All else equal, water rates
would rise to reflect the higher wholesale cost of water, quality of life would decline thru economic
impacts in addition to increased watering restrictions, and new supply sources would pose some
environmental impacts on existing ecosystems. In summary, Lake Lanier is clearly the most
economically sensible and environmentally friendly water supply source for the metro Atlanta region.

40

DEFINITION OF KEY TERMS

Conserve: A broad category of options evaluated by the Task Force that aim to reduce water demand
by consumers. Examples of conserve options include toilet retrofits, pricing, leak abatement etc. A
complete list of conserve options evaluated by the Task Force can be found in Appendix III.

Capture: A broad category of options evaluated by the Task Force that aim to enhance future water
supply through new sources or by expanding existing sources. Examples of capture options include
new reservoirs, groundwater, Aquifer Storage and Recovery (ASR) etc. A complete list of capture
options evaluated by the Task Force can be found in Appendix III.

Control: A broad category of options evaluated by the Task Force that aim to optimize management
of supply through policy and/or process changes. A complete list of control options evaluated by the
Task Force can be found in Appendix III.

Yield: The amount of water saved (in case of conserve options) or supplied (in case of capture and
control options) by an option, expressed in Millions of Gallons per Day (MGD)

Cost Efficiency: The ratio of the Net Present Value (NPV) of all costs associated with an option
(expressed in 2010 dollars) to the total yield of the option, across the estimated life of the option. This
is expressed in dollars per Million Gallons ($/MG).

41
APPENDIX

I. List of Task Force Members
II. Fact base: water situation, facts on usage
III. Complete set of options evaluated with rationale, cost, yield, implementation feasibility
IV. Technical assumptions used in option evaluation
V. Task Force member survey results
VI. Comments and submissions to Task Force

Water Contingency Planning Task Force
Appendix I

List of Task Force Members

1. Ed Holcombe, Office of Governor Sonny Perdue
2. John Brock, Coca-Cola Enterprises
3. Tim Lowe, Lowe Engineers
4. Paul Amos, AFLAC
5. Richard Anderson, Delta Air Lines
6. Kerry Armstrong, Duke Realty
7. Charles Bannister, Chair, Gwinnett County Commission
8. Jose Barella, Merial
9. John Bennett, Chair, Coosa-North Georgia Regional Water Council
10. Gary Black, Georgia Agribusiness Council
11. Frank Blake, The Home Depot
12. Billy Blanchard, Columbus Bank and Trust
13. Rex Boner, The Conservation Fund
14. Casey Cagle, Lt. Governor, Georgia Senate
15. Bill Carruth, Chair, Georgia Department of Natural Resources Board
16. Donald G. Chase, Chair, Upper Flint Regional Water Council
17. Chris Clark, Commissioner, GA Department of Natural Resources
18. Darin Collier, Worthing SE
19. Ken Cornelius, Siemens
20. Ron C. Cross, Chair, Savannah-Upper Ogeechee Regional Water Council
21. Brad Currey, Rock-Tenn Company
22. Scott Davis, UPS
23. Lynn Dempsey, Dempsey Auction Company
24. Sonny Deriso, Atlantic Capital Bank
25. Doug Dillard, Dillard & Galloway, LLC
26. Kit Dunlap, Chair, Metropolitan North Georgia Water Planning District
27. Darvin Eason, Chair, Suwannee-Satilla Regional Water Council
28. John Eaves, Chair, Fulton County Commission
29. Burrell Ellis, CEO, Dekalb County
30. Christian Fischer, Georgia-Pacific
31. Bill Floyd, Mayor, City of Decatur
32. John Fox, Emory Healthcare
33. Shirley Franklin, Mayor, City of Atlanta
34. Gardiner Garrard, The Jordan Company
35. Mike Garrett, Georgia Power Company
36. Larry Gellerstedt, Cousins Properties
37. Taylor Glover, Turner Foundation
38. Steve Green, Stephen Green Properties, Inc.
39. Ben Harbin, Chair, House Appropriations
40. Duane Harris, Sea Georgia Adventures
41. Bob Hatcher, MicCountry Financial Corp.
42. Richard Hays, Alston & Bird
43. Stephen Hill, Solvay Pharmaceuticals
Appendix I
44. Al Hodge, Greater Rome Chamber of Commerce
45. Pierre Howard, Georgia Conservancy
46. Dale Hughes, Cox Enterprises
47. Greg Hyland, Mueller Water Products
48. Bruce Jackson, Arnall Golden Gregory
49. Bob Johnston, MEAG Power
50. Mark Ketchum, Newell Rubbermaid
51. Shelly Lakly, The Nature Conservancy
52. L. Brinson Lanier, Chair, Altamaha Regional Water Council
53. Craig Lesser, The Pendleton Consulting Group
54. Joe Maltese, City of LaGrange
55. Jack Markwalter, Invesco
56. Richard McSpadden, Chair, Upper Oconee Regional Water Council
57. Al Nash, The Columns Group, Inc.
58. Bill Nuti, NCR Corporation
59. Sam Olens, Chair, Cobb County Commission
60. William Pate, Atlanta Convention and Visitors Bureau
61. Alec Poitevint, Southeastern Materials, Inc.
62. Mike Price, Oglethorpe Power Corporation
63. John Rice, GE Energy
64. Elmo A. Richardson, Chair, Middle Ocmulgee Regional Water Council
65. A. Richard Royal, Chair, Lower Flint Regional Water Council
66. Dave Scheible, Graphic Packaging
67. Donna Sheldon, House Majority Caucus Chair
68. Suzanne Sitherwood, AGL Resources
69. Gary Smith, Strategic Value Properties
70. Jack Smith, Chair, Fayette County Commission
71. Lynn Smith, Chair, House Natural Resources & Environment
72. Rick Smith, Equifax Inc.
73. Tim Stack, Piedmont Healthcare
74. Jan Tankersley, Bulloch County Commissioner
75. Helen Tapp, Trust for Public Land
76. Charles Tarbutton, Sandersville Railroad Company
77. Mike Thomas, Clayton County Water Authority
78. Benjamin Thompson, Chair, Coastal Georgia Regional Water Council
79. Ross Tolleson, Chair, Senate Natural Resources & Environment
80. Clyde Tuggle, The Coca-Cola Company
81. Dan Weber, Chair, Senate Education
82. John Wells, Interface Inc.
83. Philip Wilheit, Wilheit Packaging
84. Virgil Williams, Williams Group International, Inc.
85. Betty Willis, Emory University
86. Matt Windom, Chair, Middle Chattahoochee Regional Water Council
87. Jenner Wood, SunTrust Bank
88. Paul Wood, Georgia EMC
Appendix II
Factbase (water usage, degree of progress in recent
years)
December 2009
1 144200-01 TF Appendix II.ppt
The basics: Overview of GA water supply system
Surface
Ground
Public supply
Source
Source
Distributor
Distributor
End use
End use
Description
Description
Withdrawn by public and
private water suppliers;
primarily for domestic/
commercial uses, but
some supplied for other
end uses as well
Water used for indoor and outdoor
household purposes, and commercial
business purposes. Most supplied via
public supply, but some water is self-
supplied (eg, via wells)
Industrial-use water for manufacturing,
processing, transporting, etc. Majority is
self-supplied via wells or direct river
intakes, but some via public supply
Water used to sustain plant growth
primarily in agricultural practices, but also
includes parks, golf courses, etc. Almost
exclusively self-supplied.
Water used in generating electricity with
steam-driven turbine generators. Almost
exclusively self-supplied.
Total
supply
Source: USGS
Self-supplied
Withdrawn from a
surface- or ground-water
source by a user rather
than being obtained from
a public supply (eg, wells)
Domestic/
commercial
Industrial
Irrigation
Thermo-electric
~20%
~3%
~1%
~10%
<1%
~15%
<1%
~50%
78%
22%
100%
22%
78%
xx% - % of total GA supply
GA overview
The basics: Overview of GA water supply system
Water sources very
different for
Metro ATL vs GA
Water sources very
different for
Metro ATL vs GA
Public supply =
22% of GA withdrawals
Public supply =
Self supply =
Self supply =
78
99
22
0
20
40
60
80
100
GA
1
Metro
ATL 15
counties
Ground
Surface
%
9
91
Domestic/
commercial
All other
(Industrial,
Irrigation,
Thermoelectric)
13
19
64
4
Industrial
Thermo-
electric
Irrigation
Domestic/
commercial
GA overview
Very high reliance on surface water
Source: USGS "Water Use in Georgia by County for 2005; and Water-Use Trends, 1980-2005"
Important to distinguish between
total withdrawals and consumptive use
GA overview
216
(4%)
604
(11%)
752
(14%)
1,180
(22%)
2,721
(50%)
Total Georgia withdrawals
94
(7%) 72
(5%)
752
(57%)
212
(16%)
187
(14%)
Georgia consumptive use
Other
1
Industrial
Irrigation
Public supply
Thermoelectric
0
80
100
20
40
60
%
Total
use
~1.3BG/day
(24% of withdrawals)
~5.5BG/day
1. Includes Domestic and Commercial, and Livestock categories
Note: percentages may not sum to 100 due to rounding
Source: USGS "Water Use in Georgia by County for 2005; and Water-Use Trends, 1980-2005"
Roughly 95% of Metro public supply water use occurs in
residential / commercial uses, or system losses
Portion of total
Metro water use, 2006
1. Includes apparent losses (meter inaccuracies, data errors, etc) and real losses (leakage, breaks, overflows, etc) 2. "Other" category not defined in Metro plan
Source: Metro North GA Water Plan (May 2009)
xx%
Public supply
Residential
(Domestic)
Non-residential
Toilets
55
Faucets
50
Laundry
50
Showers
47
Other
47
360
680
211
Xxx
xx
MGD
3% 7% 7% 8%
Thermo-
electric
0
1%
Industrial
27
4%
Commercial
170
25%
Outdoor
75
11%
31% 53%
100%
7%
Dishwashers
18
Other
2
65
10%
Public
14
1%
Non-revenue
(incl. losses)
109
16%
Indoor
285
42%
Note: detail shown for
Metro area only due to
data availability
Public supply use overview
GA public supply use was slightly above average in 2000
0
100
200
300
MD
185
GAMOAR SC NC FL WI KS VT MS IL MI MT DE NY IN SDWV NJ VA PR MN RI ND NH NV ID VI WY
Ground water
2000
US Nat'l
average:
179
GPCD
CO NE AL AZ IA OKWAOR CA NM LA AK
Surface water
1. Per capita water consumption = consumption of total public supply water divided by # of people served by public supply water in state
Note: Public supply refers to water withdrawn by public and private water suppliers for domestic, commercial, industrial, or thermoelectric-power purposes
Source: US Geological Survey 2000 data
Higher demands in the West due to
agriculture irrigation
Public supply water use per capita
1
GA: 185 GPCD
US avg: 179
Water usage in Metro Atlanta lower than many
metro cities across the US in study by Georgia EPD
1. State average; data not available for individual cities in AL
Note: Overall per capita is calculated by dividing total gallons of water produced by water provider by the population served
Source: Georgia EPD analysis
Georgia EPD report overall per capita public supply water
use across metro cities in gallons per capita per day
105
128
134
139
150
151
155
157
158
163
164
167
175
190
206
213
218
233
252
254
0 50 100 150 200 250
Per capita water usage
(GPD)
LaGrange, Georgia
Los Angeles, CA
Metro Atlanta, Georgia
St. Johns River Water Mment Dist, FL
San Antonio, TX
Las Vegas, NV
New York City, NY
Portland, OR
Seattle, WA
Charlotte, NC
Denver, CO
Columbia, SC
Alabama
1
Phoenix, AZ
Dallas, TX
Macon, Georgia
Albuquerque, NM
NW Florida Water Mment Dist, FL
Tuscon, AZ
Miami, FL
Total per capita public supply water use by county in 2006
154
95
121
138
142
202
160
130
115
143
127
140
124
126
241
0
90
180
270
B
a
r
t
o
w
C
h
e
r
o
k
e
e
C
l
a
y
t
o
n
C
o
b
b
C
o
w
e
t
a
D
e
K
a
l
b
D
o
u
g
l
a
s
F
a
y
e
t
t
e
F
o
r
s
y
t
h
F
u
l
t
o
n
G
w
i
n
n
e
t
t
H
a
l
l
H
e
n
r
y
P
a
u
l
d
i
n
g
R
o
c
k
d
a
l
e
Wtd avg
1
:
151 GPCD
County
Water usage (GPCD)
1. Weighted average based on population
Note: Total adjusted per capita usage includes all public supply demand including residential, commercial, industrial, irrigation, and non-revenue water divided by total population
Source: Metro North Georgia District Plan (May 09)
Total per capita public supply water usage in 2006
Residential per capita water usage by county in 2006
68
61
68
62
65
66
63
66
70
78
68
61
62
66
67
17
16
14
16
15
15
11
15
30
24
17
14
15
12
13
0
30
60
90
120
85
B
a
r
t
o
w
77
C
h
e
r
o
k
e
e
81
C
l
a
y
t
o
n
78
C
o
b
b
79
C
o
w
e
t
a
81
D
e
K
a
l
b
74
D
o
u
g
l
a
s
81
F
a
y
e
t
t
e
100
F
o
r
s
y
t
h
101
F
u
l
t
o
n
85
G
w
i
n
n
e
t
t
Wtd avg
1
:
84 GPCD
H
a
l
l
77
H
e
n
r
y
78
P
a
u
l
d
i
n
g
75
R
o
c
k
d
a
l
e
Outdoor
Indoor
County
Water usage (GPCD)
80
Residential per capita water usage by indoor vs outdoor use in 2006
Note: Residential usage for public supplied water and population only, with outdoor usage defined as all use above the winter minimum level
Residential indoor water usage by county in 2006
67
66
62
61
68
78
70
66
63
66
65
62
68
61
68
0
20
40
60
80
100
B
a
r
t
o
w
C
h
e
r
o
k
e
e
C
l
a
y
t
o
n
C
o
b
b
C
o
w
e
t
a
D
e
K
a
l
b
D
o
u
g
l
a
s
F
a
y
e
t
t
e
F
o
r
s
y
t
h
F
u
l
t
o
n
G
w
i
n
n
e
t
t
H
a
l
l
H
e
n
r
y
P
a
u
l
d
i
n
g
R
o
c
k
d
a
l
e
County
Water usage (GPCD)
Residential indoor per capita water usage in 2006
2. Typical indoor residential usage reported by AWWA
Note: Residential usage for public supplied water and population only
Source: Metro North Georgia District Plan (May 09), American Water Works Association
Wtd avg
1
:
69 GPCD
Typical usage
2
:
69 GPCD
Residential outdoor water usage by county in 2006
13
12
15
14
17
24
30
15
11
15 15
16
14
16
17
0
10
20
30
Wtd avg
1
:
20 GPCD
B
a
r
t
o
w
C
h
e
r
o
k
e
e
C
l
a
y
t
o
n
C
o
b
b
P
a
u
l
d
i
n
g
R
o
c
k
d
a
l
e
County
C
o
w
e
t
a
D
e
K
a
l
b
D
o
u
g
l
a
s
F
a
y
e
t
t
e
F
o
r
s
y
t
h
F
u
l
t
o
n
G
w
i
n
n
e
t
t
H
a
l
l
H
e
n
r
y
Water usage (GPCD)
Residential outdoor per capita water usage in 2006
Note: Residential usage for public supplied water and population only, with outdoor usage defined as all use above the winter minimum level
Total per capita public supply water usage in 2007 and 2008
recorded by EPD during Level IV drought restriction
Note 1: Total adjusted per capita usage includes all public supply demand including residential, commercial, industrial, irrigation, and non-revenue water divided by total population
Note 2: 2007 and 2008 per capita usage not directly comparable to 2006 per capita usage as indicated in Metro North GA District Plan due to varying data sources for water usage data
Source: GA EPD
Total per capita public supply water usage in 2007 and 2008
135
86
105
112 112
137
119
101
95
105
99
121
99 99
178
117
73
94 93
90
114
85
84
85
88
76
97
91
83
142
0
50
100
150
200
2007
County
Water usage (GPCD)
Wtd avg
1
07:
116 GPCD
Wtd avg
1
08:
96 GPCD
2008
R
o
c
k
d
a
l
e
P
a
u
l
d
i
n
g
H
e
n
r
y
H
a
l
l
G
w
i
n
n
e
t
t
F
u
l
t
o
n
F
o
r
s
y
t
h
F
a
y
e
t
t
e
D
o
u
g
l
a
s
D
e
K
a
l
b
C
o
w
e
t
a
C
l
a
y
t
o
n
C
o
b
b
B
a
r
t
o
w
C
h
e
r
o
k
e
e
Large variation in public supply use among GA counties
0
100
200
300
400
Metro area
All of GA
2005
GA avg
158
County
GPCD
Public supply water use per capita
1
(2005)
1. "Public supply" use divided by population served by public supply , by county 2. Metro average reported in Metro Water Plan, May 2009 and by EPD; GA average reported by USGS
Source: USGS "Water Use in Georgia by County for 2005; and Water-Use Trends, 19802005"; Metro North GA Water Supply and Water Conservation Management Plan (May 2009)
Average
(GPCD)
2
Average
(GPCD)
2
151
158
Substantial usage reduction achieved in 2008 and 2009
Jan Feb Mar June May Apr July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec
2007
2008
2009
500
600
700
800
900
MGD
Recent progress
1. Values shown are 3-month rolling average withdrawals
Note: Data shows total withdrawals by county by month (to include all end uses); analysis shown for 55 county area due to data availability
Source: GA EPD data
GA EPD usage data from former 55
county Level 4 drought response area
1
Usage ban put in effect
-7%
-19%
Slightly higher reductions achieved in Metro area counties
Note: Analysis shown for 55 county area due to data availability; 3-month rolling average per capita use shown
Source: GA EPD data from former 55 county Level 4 drought response area; Cobb County Water System data
Recent progress
GA EPD data for
15 Metro ATL counties
GA EPD data for
15 Metro ATL counties
2009
2008
2007
2006
400
500
600
700
MGD
-10%
-20%
J
a
n
F
e
b
M
a
r
A
p
r
M
a
y
J
u
n
e
J
u
l
y
A
u
g
S
e
p
O
c
t
N
o
v
D
e
c
Cobb County usage data
(per capita)
Cobb County usage data
(per capita)
120
150
180
90
GPCD
-13%
-23%
J
a
n
F
e
b
M
a
r
A
p
r
M
a
y
J
u
n
e
J
u
l
y
A
u
g
S
e
p
O
c
t
N
o
v
D
e
c
Appendix III
Detailed description of options evaluated
(including rationale, cost, yield, timing, and
implementation feasibility)
December 2009
1 144200-01 TF Appendix III.ppt
Overview of key options: Conserve
Conserve
Conservation efficiency programs (eg, fixture retrofits)
Reuse
Pricing
Loss Reduction
Descriptions of measures evaluated in each bundle (I)
Measures Method of Implementation Description
Toilet retrofits
Current program (baseline)
Increased incentive rebate program
Direct install program
Retrofit on resale
Building plumbing code requirement
Offer $50 rebate per installation of low-flow toilets in homes
Offer $25 additional on top of current rebate ($75 rebate per installation
of low-flow toilets in homes)
Utility provider to contract with plumbing contractors to replace toilets in
all homes under jurisdiction free of charge to customer
Regulation requiring replacement of toilets prior to resale of property
Codes requiring all homes to install low-flow toilets by deadline
Showerheads
and faucets
Current give-away program (baseline)
Retrofit on resale
Updated plumbing codes
Offer free showerheads and faucet aerators to customers upon request
Continue distribution of kits; customers get $20 credit on first month's bill
Utility provider to replace toilets in all homes free of charge, and
customers receive $20 credit on first month's bill
Regulation requiring replacement of toilets prior to resale of property
Codes requiring all homes to switch to low-flow toilets by deadline
Residential
clothes
washers
No current program (baseline)
Washer rebate program
Washer program with increased rebate
No current program
Offer $100 rebate for replacement of efficient clothes washer in homes
Offer $200 rebate for replacement of efficient clothes washer in homes
Multi-family
metering
Current ordinance program (baseline)
Retrofit 50% of existing non-submetered
complexes
Retrofit 100% of existing non-
submetered complexes
Local ordinance that require all new multi-family buildings to include sub-
meters that bill for volume of water use
Ordinance to require retrofitting of submeters in 50% of existing multi-
family complexes that have not yet been retrofitted
Ordinance to require retrofitting of submeters in 100% of existing multi-
family complexes that have not yet been retrofitted
1a
1b
1c
2a
Residential
retrofits
Sub-
metering
and water
audits
1
2
Bundles
Bundles
I. Conserve Efficiency programs
Descriptions of measures evaluated in each bundle (II)
Measures Method of Implementation Description
Spray rinse
valves
Education program (baseline)
Valve rebate program
Education program to encourage restaurant/commercial kitchen to use spray rinse
valves
Offer $50 rebate for replacement of spray rinse valves in restaurants/commercial
kitchens
Utility provider to install 1.6 gpm spray nozzles in restaurants/commercial kitchens
Cooling
towers
Cooling tower rebate program
Cooling tower standards
No current program
Provide rebate program to commercial users to replace cooling towers, which can
increase cycles of concentration from 2 to 5 and can save ~40% of water
Required ordinance to increase water efficiency of cooling towers, and increase
cycles of concentration from 2 to 5, which can save ~40% of water
Watering
restrictions
3 days/week schedule (baseline)
No daytime watering
1 day/week watering schedule
Ordinance that allows watering only 3 days per week
Watering ordinance that bans daytime watering
Watering ordinance that allows watering only 1 day per week
Rain sensor
irrigation
Current state law (baseline)
Retrofit 25% of existing systems
without rain sensors
Retrofit 50% of existing systems
without rain sensors
State law requires rain sensor shut-off switches on all new irrigation systems
Ordinance to require retrofitting of rain sensor shut-off switches on 25% of existing
irrigation systems that do not yet have rain sensors
Ordinance to require retrofitting of rain sensor shut-off switches on 50% of existing
irrigation systems that do not yet have rain sensors
3a
3b
4a
4b
Commercial
retrofits
and
process
improve-
ments
3
Outdoor
water usage
reduction
4
Bundles
Bundles
Efficiency measures considered (I)
Measures Method of Implementation Rationale Key Challenges Timing
Toilet retrofits
Increased incentive rebate
program
Retrofit on resale
Provide consumer with choice to
participate in program
Optimize penetration in market
Expedite adoption rate via resale
market and optimize penetration
Ensuring compliance with program and
whether rebate increase will achieve
anticipated increase in participation
Added enforcement cost to utility to ensure
compliance with program
Utility liability for direct installs
Objection from home owners needing to
retrofit homes prior to sale
3 year program,
100% completion
by 2012
Showerheads
and faucets
Increased incentive rebate
program
3 year program,
100% completion
by 2012
Residential
clothes
washers
Washer program with increased
rebate
Provide consumer with incentive
to participate in program
Increase adoption rate and
penetration in market
Extremely difficult to get participation
Added rebate cost to utility to provide
increased incentive
10 year program,
~30% completion
by 2012
Multi-family
metering
Retrofit existing homes in
addition to new development to
capture major savings
Objection from apartment complexes,
building owners, and other stakeholders
3 year program,
100% completion
by 2012
1a
1b
1c
2a
Efficiency measures considered (II)
Measures Method of Implementation Rationale Key Challenges Timing
Spray rinse
valves
Valve rebate program
Improve business processes in
long-term
Ensuring compliance with program
3 year program,
100% completion
by 2012
Cooling
towers
Cooling tower rebate program
participate in rebate program
Improve business processes in
long-term
Objection from commercial community
3 year program,
100% completion
by 2012
Watering
restrictions
No daytime watering
1 day/week schedule
Reduce discretionary outdoor
water usage
Compromise on beautification of greenspace
3 year program,
100% completion
by 2012
Rain sensor
irrigation
Retrofit 25% of existing
systems without rain sensors
Retrofit 50% of existing
systems without rain sensors
Retrofit existing irrigation systems
in addition to new irrigation
systems to capture more savings
Increase penetration in market
3 year program,
100% completion
by 2012
3a
3b
4a
4b
Conservation efficiency programs offer attractive cost
efficiency levels
Bundles Measures evaluated
Incremental yield
in 2012 (MGD)
Incremental yield in
2035 (MGD)
Residential retrofits 5-28
2-3
3-8
10-23
Sub-metering and
water audits
3-27
2-3
3-7 Commercial retrofits
and process
improvements
Spray rinse valves
Cooling tower rebate/standards
$100 - $200
10-27 Outdoor water usage
reduction
Average cost
efficiency
($/MG)
Toilet retrofit
Clothes washers
$350-$400
$250-$350
$1000-$1100
Multi-family sub-metering $160 - $170
Watering restrictions
Rain sensor controllers
$10
$50-$70
1
2
3
4
20 62 MGD Total: 18 65 MGD
xx xx MGD
More aggressive program (eg.
incentive-driven implementation)
Most aggressive program (eg.
mandated implementation)
Key question becomes degree of mandatory measures
(which increase yield) versus incentive-driven approach
Source: Technical Advisory Panel analysis
Cost/benefit estimates of water efficiency programs
Measure Method of Implementation
Penetration
(%)
Yield in
2035
(MGD)
Yield in
2012
(MGD)
Total
cost
2
($M)
Toilet retrofits
1.6
14.6
1.2
10.0
0.6
1.9
1.7
3.3
Showerheads
and faucets
$8.5
$82.3
2.6
15.6
2.5
11.3
Residential
clothes
washers
Increased washer rebates
0%
5%
15%
0.2
0.6
$3.7
$40.5
$12.4
$34.2
1.7
3.3
$5.1
$10.2
~ $1100
~ $1000
3 year
implementation
program
Multi-family
metering
10%
20%
100%
Current give-away program (baseline)
15%
25%
100%
~ $350
~ $250
3 year
implementation
program
Current ordinance program (baseline)
Retrofit 50% existing homes
Retrofit 100% existing homes
0%
50%
100%
~ $160
~ $170
3 year
implementation
program
Avg
unit
cost
1
($/MG) Timing
Current rebate program (baseline)
~ $400
~ $350
3 year
implementation
program
Incremental water savings to
programs in current District Plan
1a
1b
1c
2a
1. Based upon 50 years of lifetime yield for all measures, yield by 2012 2. Total cost in 2010 dollars
Cost/benefit estimates of water efficiency programs
Measure Method of Implementation
Penetrati
on (%)
Yield in
2035
(MGD)
Yield in
2012
(MGD)
Total
cost
2
($M)
Spray
rinse
valves
0.3
1.8
2.7
5.4
7.2
21.5
3.0
5.9
Cooling
towers
$0.4
$3.0
0.7
2.2
2.7
5.4
4.9
14.6
Rain
sensor
irrigation
Current state law (baseline)
Retrofit 25% existing irrigation systems
Retrofit 50% existing irrigation systems
0%
25%
50%
5.2
8.1
$5.1
$10.3
Water
restrictions
Current 3 days/week schedule (baseline)
No daytime watering
1 day/week schedule
0%
5%
15%
~ $50
~ $70
$8.4
$16.8
$1.5
$3.0
3 year
implementation
program
~ $10
~ $10
3 year
implementation
program
10%
25%
100%
Cooling tower audits
0%
25%
50%
~ $170
~ $170
3 year
implementation
program
Avg
unit
Cost
($/MG) Timing
Current education program (baseline)
Rebate program
~ $120
~ $110
3 year
implementation
program
Incremental water savings to
programs in current District Plan
3a
3b
4a
4b
1. Based upon 50 years of lifetime yield for all measures, yield by 2012 2. Total cost in 2010 dollars
Potential savings from retrofit to
1.28 gallons per flush (gpf) high-efficiency toilet
Total Demand = 680 MGD
% toilet
usage
addressable
40%
% water
reduction
70%
% adoption
of program
90%
53% of total is residential use
16% of residential is toilet use
40% of housing
stock still contains
3.5 or 5 gpf toilets
70% reduction in
water usage by
switching to low-
flow toilets
90% adoption of program
means replacement of ~ 3.5
million toilets. Back in the
1990s, NYC replaced ~1.3
million toilets in 3 years
Estimated
potential
savings:
15 MGD
Total
potential
savings:
16 MGD
Addressable
toilet
usage:
23 MGD
Total
toilet
usage:
58 MGD
Source: Technical advisory panel analysis
Toilet retrofits (I)
Method of implementation: increased incentive rebate program
Current plan in Metro District: current implementation is 2% per year for 5 years at $50 rebate,
Yield
Cost
Cost category
Cost category
Rebate/incentives
Equipm't/installation
Marketing /admin
Enforcement
Cost to customer
Total cost to utility:
Logic
Logic
Rebate of $75/toilet, increase of $25 (50% increase in rebate amount)
No equipment and installation cost for utility, born by customer
12% admin cost of total cost to utility (8% + 4% contingency)
No enforcement cost
Cost to customer to install toilets
Cost ($M)
Cost ($M)
$7.7
-
$0.9
-
$4.7
$8.5
Assumption
Assumption
Usage in consumption category
% addressable of total usage
% savings from conservation program
% targeted (incremental adoption rate)
= Water savings (MGD)
Logic
Logic
680MGD*53%(residential)*80%(indoor)*20%(toilets)
40% of housing stock contain 5 or 3.5 gpf toilets
Switching to 1.28 gpf toilets provides ~60% reduction
10% increase in adoption rate from current program
Value
Value
58 MGD
40%
70%
10%
1.6 MGD
Stakeholder
sensitivity Reasons Permits required
Requires
legislation
No significant
sensitivities noted
No No
Cost-effective measures with little negative
societal/environmental impact
U
t
i
l
i
t
y
Stakeholder
sensitivity
Toilet retrofits (II)
Method of implementation: direct install program
Current plan in Metro District: current implementation is 2% per year for 5 years at $50 rebate,
Yield
Cost
Cost category
Cost category
Rebate/incentives
Marketing /admin
Enforcement
Cost to customer
Logic
Logic
No rebate cost provided
Installation cost at $225/install for utility (additional cost of $175/toilet)
25% admin cost of total utility cost (20% + 5% contingency)
No enforcement cost
No customer cost, utility carries all cost of program
Cost ($M)
Cost ($M)
-
$65.9
$16.5
-
-
$82.3
Assumption
Assumption
Logic
Logic
680MGD*53%(residential)*80%(indoor)*20%(toilets)
40% of housing stock contain 5 or 3.5 gpf toilets
Switching to 1.28 gpf toilets provides ~60% reduction
Value
Value
58 MGD
40%
70%
90%
14.6MGD
Stakeholder
Requires
legislation
No significant
sensitivities noted
No No
U
t
i
l
i
t
y
Stakeholder
sensitivity
Showerheads and faucets (I)
Current plan in Metro District: voluntary program at current implementation level of 15% over a
10-year program period
Yield
Cost
Cost category
Cost category
Rebate/incentives
Marketing /admin
Enforcement
Cost to customer
Logic
Logic
Cost of $20 credit on first month's bill per account
No equipment or installation cost for utility, born by customer
40% admin cost of total utility cost (25%+15% contingency)
No enforcement cost
Cost to customer to retrofit showerheads and faucets
Cost ($M)
Cost ($M)
$2.2
-
$1.5
-
$2.0
$3.7
Assumption
Assumption
Logic
Logic
680MGD*53%(residential)*80%(indoor)*41%(showerhead/faucet)
40% of housing stock contain 2 gpm showerhead/faucets
Switching to 1.5 gpm retrofits provides ~25% reduction
Value
Value
118 MGD
40%
25%
10%
1.2 MGD
Stakeholder
Requires
legislation
No significant
sensitivities noted
No No
U
t
i
l
i
t
y
Stakeholder
sensitivity
Showerheads and faucets (II)
Current plan in Metro District: voluntary program at current implementation level of 15% over a
10-year program period
Yield
Cost
Cost category
Cost category
Rebate/incentives
Marketing /admin
Enforcement
Cost to customer
Logic
Logic
Installation at $45/install for utility, plus $20 credit on customer first month bill
50% admin cost of total utility cost
No enforcement cost
Cost ($M)
Cost ($M)
-
$24.7
$15.8
-
-
$40.5
Assumption
Assumption
Logic
Logic
Value
Value
Stakeholder
Requires
legislation
No significant
sensitivities noted
No No
U
t
i
l
i
t
y
680MGD*53%(residential)*80%(indoor)*41%(showerhead/faucet)
40% of housing stock contain 2 gpm showerhead/faucets
Switching to 1.5 gpm retrofits provides ~25% reduction
118 MGD
40%
25%
85%
10 MGD
Stakeholder
sensitivity
Residential clothes washers (I)
Method of implementation: washer rebate program
Current plan in Metro District: no current program
Yield
Cost
Cost category
Cost category
Rebate/incentives
Marketing /admin
Enforcement
Cost to customer
Logic
Logic
Cost of $100 per rebate
No enforcement cost
Total cost of washer at $300 each, additional cost to customer = $200 each
Cost ($M)
Cost ($M)
$7.4
-
$5.0
-
$37.2
$12.4
Assumption
Assumption
Logic
Logic
680MGD*53%(residential)*80%(indoor)*18%(laundry)
60% of housing stock contains high usage washers
Switching to efficient washers provides ~40% reduction
Value
Value
52 MGD
60%
40%
5%
0.6 MGD
Stakeholder
Requires
legislation
No significant
sensitivities noted
No No
U
t
i
l
i
t
y
Stakeholder
sensitivity
Residential clothes washers (II)
Method of implementation: increased washer rebate program
Current plan in Metro District: no current program
Yield
Cost
Cost category
Cost category
Rebate/incentives
Marketing /admin
Enforcement
Cost to customer
Logic
Logic
Cost of $200 per rebate
No enforcement cost
Total cost of washer at $300 each, additional cost to customer = $100 each
Cost ($M)
Cost ($M)
$20.5
-
$13.7
-
$40.9
$34.2
Assumption
Assumption
Logic
Logic
680MGD*53%(residential)*80%(indoor)*18%(laundry)
60% of housing stock contains high usage washers
Switching to efficient washers provides ~40% reduction
Value
Value
52 MGD
60%
40%
15%
1.9 MGD
Stakeholder
Requires
legislation
No significant
sensitivities noted
No No
U
t
i
l
i
t
y
Stakeholder
sensitivity
Multi-family sub-metering (I)
Method of implementation: incentive targeting retrofit 50% of existing non-submetered buildings
Current plan in Metro District: current program is local ordinance to install sub-meters in all
new multi-family buildings
Yield
Cost
Cost category
Cost category
Rebate/incentives
Marketing /admin
Enforcement
Cost to customer
Logic
Logic
No cost of rebate
Retrofit cost of $50,000 per complex (with replacement every 15 years)
No enforcement cost
Customer cost of $2,500 per complex
Cost ($M)
Cost ($M)
-
$4.1
$1.0
-
$0.2
$5.1
Assumption
Assumption
Logic
Logic
680MGD*13%(multi-family)
25% of buildings not sub-metered
Switching to submetering provides ~15% reduction
Value
Value
88 MGD
25%
15%
50%
1.7 MGD
Stakeholder
Requires
legislation
No significant
sensitivities noted
No No
U
t
i
l
i
t
y
Stakeholder
sensitivity
Multi-family sub-metering (II)
Method of implementation: mandate to retrofit100% of existing non-submetered buildings
Current plan in Metro District: current program is local ordinance to install sub-meters in all
new multi-family buildings
Yield
Cost
Cost category
Cost category
Rebate/incentives
Marketing /admin
Enforcement
Cost to customer
Logic
Logic
No cost of rebate
Retrofit cost of $50,000 per complex (with replacement every 15 years)
No enforcement cost
Customer cost of $2,500 per complex
Cost ($M)
Cost ($M)
-
$8.2
$2.0
-
$0.4
$10.2
Assumption
Assumption
Logic
Logic
680MGD*13%(multi-family)
25% of buildings not sub-metered
Switching to submetering provides ~15% reduction
Value
Value
88 MGD
25%
15%
100%
3.3 MGD
Stakeholder
Requires
legislation
No significant
sensitivities noted
No No
U
t
i
l
i
t
y
Stakeholder
sensitivity
Spray rinse valves (I)
Current plan in Metro District: current education program only, with an implementation level of
~10% over a 10-year program
Yield
Cost
Cost category
Cost category
Rebate/incentives
Marketing /admin
Enforcement
Cost to customer
Logic
Logic
Rebate of $50/valve
No equipment and installation cost for utility, born by customer
40% admin cost of total cost to utility
No enforcement cost
Cost to customer to install spray rinse valves
Cost ($M)
Cost ($M)
$0.2
-
$0.2
-
$0.3
$0.4
Assumption
Assumption
Logic
Logic
680MGD*25%(commercial)*80%(indoor)*10% (rinsing usage)
40% of commercial kitchens/restaurants eligible
Switching to pre-rinse spray valves provides ~35% reduction
Value
Value
14 MGD
40%
35%
15%
0.3 MGD
Stakeholder
Requires
legislation
No significant
sensitivities noted
No No
U
t
i
l
i
t
y
Stakeholder
sensitivity
Spray rinse valves (II)
Current plan in Metro District: current education program only, with an implementation level of
~10% over a 10-year program
Yield
Cost
Cost category
Cost category
Rebate/incentives
Marketing /admin
Enforcement
Cost to customer
Logic
Logic
Installation cost at $200/install for utility
50% admin cost of total utility cost
No enforcement cost
Cost ($M)
Cost ($M)
-
$1.1
$1.9
-
-
$3.0
Assumption
Assumption
Logic
Logic
680MGD*25%(commercial)*80% (indoor)*10%(rinsing usage)
40% of commercial kitchens/restaurants eligible
Switching to pre-rinse spray valves provides ~35% reduction
Value
Value
14 MGD
40%
35%
90%
1.8 MGD
Stakeholder
Requires
legislation
No significant
sensitivities noted
No No
U
t
i
l
i
t
y
Stakeholder
sensitivity
Cooling towers (I)
Method of implementation: incentive rebate program to retrofit cooling towers
Current plan in Metro District: no current program in place
Yield
Cost
Cost category
Cost category
Rebate/incentives
Marketing /admin
Enforcement
Cost to customer
Logic
Logic
Installation cost for utility
Cost for increased monitoring and auditing of cooling towers
No enforcement cost
Customer cost to improve cooling process with higher cycles of concentration
Cost ($M)
Cost ($M)
-
$5.0
$3.4
-
$3.4
$8.4
Assumption
Assumption
Logic
Logic
680MGD*25%(commercial)*20%(cooling towers)
80% of cooling towers are eligible
Increase from 2 to 5 cycles of concentration gives ~40% reduction
Value
Value
34 MGD
80%
40%
25%
2.7 MGD
Stakeholder
Requires
legislation
No significant
sensitivities noted
No No
U
t
i
l
i
t
y
Stakeholder
sensitivity
Cooling towers (II)
Method of implementation: ordinance for higher cooling tower standards for top 50% of users
Current plan in Metro District: no current program in place
Yield
Cost
Cost category
Cost category
Rebate/incentives
Marketing /admin
Enforcement
Cost to customer
Logic
Logic
Installation cost for utility
No marketing/admin cost
Cost of increased monitoring and enforcement to ensure standards
Customer cost to improve cooling process with higher cycles of concentration
Cost ($M)
Cost ($M)
-
$7.1
-
$9.7
$6.7
$16.8
Assumption
Assumption
Logic
Logic
680MGD*25%(commercial)*20%(cooling towers)
80% of cooling towers are eligible
Increase from 2 to 4 cycles of concentration gives ~40% reduction
Value
Value
34 MGD
80%
40%
50%
5.4 MGD
Stakeholder
Requires
legislation
No significant
sensitivities noted
No No
U
t
i
l
i
t
y
Stakeholder
sensitivity
Watering restrictions (I)
Method of implementation: no daytime watering
Current plan in Metro District: current outdoor water use schedule since 2003 restricts watering
to 3 days / week for all residential/commercial users
Yield
Cost
Cost category
Cost category
Rebate/incentives
Marketing /admin
Enforcement
Cost to customer
Logic
Logic
No rebate cost
No equipment or installation cost
Enforcement cost of $100k per provider for the top 15 providers
No customer cost
Cost ($M)
Cost ($M)
-
-
-
$1.5
-
$1.5
Assumption
Assumption
Logic
Logic
1100MGD*[(53%(res.)*20%(outdoor)+25%(com.)*10%(outdoor)]
100% of outdoor water usage potentially addressable
Watering restriction able to provide ~5% reduction
100% adoption rate from current program
Value
Value
143 MGD
100%
5%
100%
7.2 MGD
Stakeholder
Requires
legislation
No significant
sensitivities noted
No No
U
t
i
l
i
t
y
Stakeholder
sensitivity
Watering restrictions (II)
Method of implementation: 1 day/week watering schedule
Current plan in Metro District: current outdoor water use schedule since 2003 restricts watering
to 3 days / week for all residential/commercial users
Yield
Cost
Cost category
Cost category
Rebate/incentives
Marketing /admin
Enforcement
Cost to customer
Logic
Logic
No rebate cost
No equipment or installation cost
Enforcement cost of $200k per provider for the top 15 providers
No customer cost
Cost ($M)
Cost ($M)
-
-
-
$3.0
-
$3.0
Assumption
Assumption
Logic
Logic
100% of outdoor water usage potentially addressable
Watering restriction able to provide ~15% reduction
100% adoption rate from current program
Value
Value
143 MGD
100%
15%
100%
21.5MGD
Stakeholder
Requires
legislation
No significant
sensitivities noted
No No
U
t
i
l
i
t
y
Stakeholder
sensitivity
Rain sensor irrigation (I)
Method of implementation: retrofit 25% of existing irrigation systems
Current plan in Metro District: current program is state law requiring rain shut-off sensors
installed on all new irrigation systems for residential/commercial
Yield
Cost
Cost category
Cost category
Rebate/incentives
Marketing /admin
Enforcement
Cost to customer
Logic
Logic
No cost of rebate
Retrofit cost of $100 per irrigation system
No enforcement cost
No customer cost
Cost ($M)
Cost ($M)
-
$4.1
$1.0
-
-
$5.1
Assumption
Assumption
Logic
Logic
90% of irrigation systems do not yet have rain sensors
Installing rain sensor irrigation systems provides ~15% reduction
Value
Value
88 MGD
90%
15%
25%
3.0 MGD
Stakeholder
Requires
legislation
No significant
sensitivities noted
No No
U
t
i
l
i
t
y
Stakeholder
sensitivity
Rain sensor irrigation (II)
Method of implementation: retrofit 50% of existing irrigation systems
Current plan in Metro District: current program is state law requiring rain shut-off sensors
installed on all new irrigation systems for residential/commercial
Yield
Cost
Cost category
Cost category
Rebate/incentives
Marketing /admin
Enforcement
Cost to customer
Logic
Logic
No cost of rebate
Retrofit cost of $100 per irrigation system
No enforcement cost
No customer cost
Cost ($M)
Cost ($M)
-
$8.2
$2.1
-
-
$10.3
Assumption
Assumption
Logic
Logic
90% of irrigation systems do not yet have rain sensors
Installing rain sensor irrigation systems provides ~15% reduction
Value
Value
88 MGD
90%
15%
50%
5.9 MGD
Stakeholder
Requires
legislation
No significant
sensitivities noted
No No
U
t
i
l
i
t
y
Stakeholder
sensitivity
Water conservation programs: background
Total of 35 conservation measures considered qualitatively and/or quantitatively
Measures consolidated from Metro North Georgia District Plans (2009 and 2003
plans), Task Force members, stakeholders and case studies from other regions
For ease of discussion, measures organized into 6 bundles
1. Residential retrofits
2. Sub-metering and water audits
3. Commercial retrofits and process improvements
4. Outdoor water usage reduction
5. Localized water recycling capability
6. Enablers to encourage conservation
Quantitatively evaluated a
subset (with highest-potential
impact) of these measures
Not quantitatively evaluated due
to lower impact, but should be
considered by local gov't on
individual basis
Not quantitatively evaluated but
addressed in recommendations
Bundles of measures considered and evaluated (I)
Options
Efficient fixtures
Low-flow toilets
Low-flow showerheads and faucets
Efficient clothes washers
Efficient dishwashers
Retrofit kits (containing low-flow showerheads, faucet aerators, toilet leak-detection dye
tablets, and pamphlet on water conservation)
Building code requirements to install hot water pipe insulation
'Hot water on demand' system to recycle water sitting in pipes back to water heater
Regulations on sub-metering in multi-family buildings
Residential water audits
Commercial water audits
Efficient fixtures
Low-flow spray rinse nozzles in restaurants
Low-flow toilets and urinals in public spaces or new developments
Washing machines in laundromats
Self-closing faucets in high-use restrooms
Air-cooled ice machines in hotels
Cooling tower audit and replacement to improve cooling process and reduce water use
Cooling tower metering to measure makeup and bleed-off water of facilities
Water credit program where water providers would provide credit rebate based on
avoided cost of new water capacity for users who install water efficient equipment
Residential
retrofits
Sub-metering and
water audits
5
6
7
9
16
8
17
18
Bundles
Bundles
Commercial
retrofits and
process
improvements
10
1
2
3
1-4
11-15
Quantitatively evaluated in detail
Options
Rain sensor shut off devices/high-tech irrigation controllers
Permanent irrigation codes and time-of-day watering restrictions
Xeriscape or other native/water-conserving species landscaping
Trigger shut-off valves and hose timers
Irrigation audits for large turf areas to ensure property irrigation system installation
Prohibit HOA or CC&R conditions that mandate use of turf in developments
Rainwater harvesting via barrels and cisterns
Public/private swimming pool covers to prevent evaporative loss
Drive-through car washes to install equipment to recycle water
Water recycle equipm't in X-ray machine for process water, developer, filter solution
Prohibit water use in non-recycling water fountains, once-through cooling processes
Laundry recycle systems at commercial laundries
Public awareness and participation programs
Landscape training class, Xeriscape demonstration garden
School education and targeted high-user education programs
Water budgets and water saving goals/ordinances
Tax incentives or other low-interest rate loans
New home efficiency award programs for "Green Builder" developers (WaterSense)
'Enablers' to
encourage
conservation
Localized
water
recycling
capability
Outdoor
water usage
reduction
Bundles of measures considered and evaluated (II)
20
22
23
24
19
21
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
Bundles
Bundles
4
5
6
Quantitatively evaluated in detail
Outdoor
21%
(76)
79%
(284)
Indoor
18%
(50)
Faucets
18%
(50)
Laundry
23%
(65)
Showers/Baths
6%
(18)
Dishwashers
16%
(47)
Other
2
Toilets
19%
(55)
Losses
1
15%
(102 MGD)
Commercial
25%
(170 MGD)
Industrial/public
6%
(41 MGD)
53%
(360 MGD)
Residential
(Domestic)
Efficiency measures evaluated address all major
water consumption categories
Metro Water District water use profile
Metro Water District water use profile
Total = 680 Million Gallons/Day
Residential retrofits can address 25% of total water usage
360 MGD
284 MGD
1. Includes apparent losses (meter inaccuracies, data errors, etc) and real losses (leakage, breaks, overflows, etc) 2. "Other" not defined in Metro plan likely includes drinking, food preparation, etc.
Source: Metro North Georgia Water Supply and Water Conservation Management Plan (May 2009)
Water conservation programs: evaluation and prioritization
Set of 35 efficiency measures considered; quantitatively evaluated a subset those
affecting the biggest water use consumption categories and with the highest potential
water savings impact
1
Evaluated measures with water savings potential incremental to 2009 Water District Plan,
leveraging that plan's underlying assumptions and baseline data
Measures not quantified offer lower potential impact (based on type of consumption
addressed) and their potential can be highly utility-specific
Two general methods of implementation were considered: incentive-driven and mandated
Incentive-driven implementation via rebates and credits on bills
Mandated implementation via ordinances and direct installs by utilities
Only those options that were quantitatively evaluated will be presented for Task Force
prioritization and comment
Assume that cost and yield data are required inputs for Task Force member prioritization
Measures not quantified should be considered by individual utilities and local
governments for their applicability and local potential
1. Highest water savings impact also confirmed with evaluations from the 2009 Metro North Georgia Water District Plan
Source: Metro North Georgia Water District Plan (May 2009); Technical Advisor Panel, Ga Water Utility Manager interviews
Conserve option evaluations defined and categorized
by the two methods of implementation
Potential water savings in 2012
Potential water savings in 2012
Conserve options
Conserve options
Toilet retrofits
Residential clothes washers
Multi-family metering
Spray rinse valves
Cooling towers
Water restrictions
Rain sensor irrigation
Pricing
Loss reduction
Total
Incentive-driven implementation
Incentive-driven implementation
Mandated implementation
Mandated implementation
E
f
f
i
c
i
e
n
c
y

p
r
o
g
r
a
m
s
2.6 MGD
2.5 MGD
0.2 0.6 MGD
1.7 MGD
0.7 MGD
2.7 MGD
-
5.2 8.1 MGD
4 - 7 MGD
-
20 26 MGD
15.6 MGD
11.3 MGD
-
3.3 MGD
2.2 MGD
5.4 MGD
4.9 14.6 MGD
-
-
8 10 MGD
51 62 MGD
Method of implementation selected based on expected
target market penetration of conservation programs
Selection of method of implementation for given conservation option based on starting
point of a more accepted, incentive-driven approach incremental to district plan (eg,
higher rebate than provided by current program, larger credit on water bill)
If incentive-driven approach alone incapable of reaching most aggressive market
penetration for option, then mandated approach evaluated to meet adoption rate targets
Mandates considered under context of feasibility and implementation sensitivity else a
more aggressive incentive-based option considered at lower market penetration rate
Note that some conservation options are incentive-driven or mandate-based by nature
Eg, watering restrictions, such as no daytime watering or one day per week watering
schedule, can only be mandate-based, with maximum adoption achieved by 100%
compliance through strict enforcement
Eg, conservation-based pricing is by nature incentive-driven, as behavioral adjustments to
pricing signal driven heavily by financial incentive to conserve
Conserve options total potential water savings
in 2012 under each scenario
Scenario
Scenario
Options considered
by TF incremental to
district plan
With additional
aggressive pricing
program
With additional
outdoor residential
water ban
Base option (scenario 1)
program descriptions
Base option (scenario 1)
program descriptions
Toilet retrofit to 1.28 gpf HETs
Retrofit to 1.5 gpm showerheads
Retrofit to efficient clothes
washers with a water factor of 4
or less
Install meters on existing un-
submetered multi-family
buildings
Retrofit to low flow spray rinse
valves
Increase cooling tower from 2 to
5 cycles of concentration
Outdoor water usage restricted
to no daytime watering or one
day/week water schedule
Install rain sensors on all
existing irrigation systems that
do not yet have them
1
2
3
Potential savings
considered in 2012 on top
of current district plan
Potential savings
considered in 2012 on top
of current district plan
26 - 79 MGD
43 96 MGD
26 128 MGD
Pricing savings of 4-7
MGD (scenario 1)
increase by 17 MGD
Total outdoor savings of
14-30 MGD (scenario 1)
by 49 MGD
Source: Metro North Georgia Water Planning District- May 09 Plan, Technical Advisory Panel analysis
Conserve
Reuse
Pricing
Loss Reduction
I. Conserve Reuse
Water re-use: option descriptions
Option
Option
Indirect potable
reuse
Direct potable
reuse
Non-potable reuse
Grey water reuse
Description
Description
Recapture treated wastewater discharges downstream from original
point of discharge to replenish drinking water supplies, then pump
water to upstream communities critically impacted by ruling
Treat wastewater to extremely high standards, then bring it directly
back to the drinking water supply system without any dilution with
nature
Use treated wastewater for non-potable uses such as irrigation of
golf courses, parks, or for use in cooling plant processes
Localized purple pipes to directly reuse grey water (non-toilet
household water such as shower and sink water) for non-potable
reuse such as toilets
Option
Average
Yield
(MGD)
Cost
efficiency
($/MG)
Total cost
($M)
Capital
cost
($M)
6-county solution
4-county solution
(excl Hall, Forsyth)
Direct potable
reuse
Irrigation of all
outdoor usage
For golf courses,
parks only
1
$1,070
5
$1,000
5
Retrofit on existing
homes
$1,700
$2,800
$2,000
$5,600
$14,400
$111
~70-75
4
3
$11,000
2
$2,000
$14,800
$112
3-7
$3,300 ~20-25 $9,000 -
$27,000
3
$10,000
Timing (years)
~250
205
Localized implementation at 10% of
households/year
4-5
~250
$4,900
5
$3,700
5
3-4 $8,000
Indirect
potable
reuse
Non-potable
reuse
(irrigation)
Direct
potable
reuse
Grey water
reuse
1
2
3
4
Indirect potable re-use the highest yielding,
most cost-efficient re-use option
Reuse I. Conserve
1. Based on demand from top 10 irrigation users (golf courses and parks) in the 6 affected counties 2. Cost highly dependent on customer density 3. Cost highly dependent on cost of equalization,
treatment, and pressure tank 4. Total of all outdoor water use (total use less winter use) for the 6 affected counties, with Cobb County at 53% to reflect their withdrawals from Chattahoochee only
Source: Technical Advisory Panel analysis; 5. Updated to include additional treatment cost (ozone treatment for water and wastewater) above and beyond EPD requirements based on feedback from
water providers
Detailed cost estimates for water reuse options
Option
Pump &
pipe
($M)
Water
treatment
($M)
Storage
space
($M)
Infra-
structure
($M)
Pumping
cost
($M)
O&M
cost
($M)
$1350
1
$1150
1
$1,700
1
$1500
1
$2,200
$400
-
$6,800
$4,700
-
-
Total
($M)
-
$71
$71
$71
-
-
-
$2,100
$1,700
$2,400
$400
$1
Retrofit on existing
homes
-
$3,300 $3,300 -
$33
$24
$6,800
$14
$400
$200
$200
-
-
-
$1
$1,370
$800
$810
$14,400
$111
Total
($M)
6-county solution
4-county solution
(excl Hall, Forsyth)
$2,800
$2,000
$5,600
$14,400
$111
Direct potable
reuse
Irrigation of all
outdoor usage
For golf courses,
parks only
Capital Cost
Capital Cost
Operating Cost
Operating Cost
Indirect
potable
reuse
Non-potable
reuse
(irrigation)
Direct
potable
reuse
Grey water
reuse
1
2
3
4
Reuse I. Conserve
1. Updated to include additional treatment cost (ozone treatment for water and wastewater) above and beyond EPD requirements based on feedback from water providers
All estimates have been rounded to the nearest tenth, numbers may not add up due to rounding errors
I. Conserve Reuse
Water reuse options considered (I)
Description of solution Rationale Key challenges
Timing
(years)
Expand current indirect
potable reuse, which is
recapturing treated wastewater
discharges downstream from
original point of discharge to
replenish drinking water
supplies then pumping water
to upstream communities
critically impacted by ruling
Already practiced on the
Chattahoochee, but can be
maximized in this need-based
solution to directly address
the gap in critically impacted
counties
No negative impact on
downstream users who use
indirect potable reuse
Regional cooperation and
financing
Hall and Forsyth Counties may
need to find alternate solutions
since this option is much more
costly for those two counties
Public education and acceptance
Assessing any impacts on water
quality / temperature
~4-5
Treat wastewater to extremely
high standards, then bring it
directly back to the drinking
water supply system without
any dilution with nature
Reduces surface water
demands
No negative impact on
downstream users who use
indirect potable reuse
Avoid pumping and piping
costs associated with indirect
reuse (ie, don't have to build
additional conveyance
network and pumping
infrastructure)
No precedent currently not
practiced in the US
There is no regulatory framework
in place such as agreed upon
treatment standards to
implement option
Public perception and
acceptance is questionable-
would require very high treatment
standards
~3-4
Indirect
potable
reuse
Direct
potable
reuse
1
2
I. Conserve Reuse
Water reuse options considered (II)
Description of solution Rationale Key challenges
Timing
(years)
Use high quality treated
wastewater for non-potable
uses such as irrigation of golf
courses, parks
Use secondary-quality treated
wastewater for use in cooling
plant processes
Reduces use of
potable water for
non-potable purposes
Disruption caused by a dual
distribution system construction in
developed areas may be
unacceptable
Limited number of potential large
users (of cooling plant water) and
very uncertain demand which limits
potential yield
~3-7
Localized purple pipes to
directly reuse grey water
(non-toilet household water
such as shower and sink
water) for non-potable reuse
such as toilets
Reuse of grey water
for toilets can reduce
demand on potable
water
Some plumbing codes may not allow
purple pipes to be installed in homes
Potential health risk (ie. cross
connections)
Poor maintenance by home owners
and lack of public oversight could
result in water quality issues and
concerns
Localized
implementation
at 10% of
households/
year
Non-
potable
reuse
Grey water
reuse
3
4
I. Conserve Reuse Reuse
Indirect potable reuse: context
Indirect potable reuse is recapturing treated wastewater, which after sufficient contact
and dilution with nature, can be reused for potable purposes
Uses water treatment technologies to return wastewater to the natural environment (eg.
river, stream, or reservoir), and pumps return flow upstream to critically impacted counties
to increase their drinking water supply
Indirect potable reuse is a critical component of the Metro Water District's water supply
plans through 2035 and beyond
Currently practiced in Metro Water District both in planned and incidental forms, but
expansion of option can directly address the gap in critically affected counties
Incidental reuse common in Metro Water District, as several major water supply intakes
on the Chattahoochee River are downstream of wastewater discharges
Planned reuse has been instituted by a number of local wastewater providers since 2003,
mostly found in Gwinnett, Cobb and Clayton Counties
Indirect potable reuse: infrastructure requirement
Fulton
Forsyth
Fulton Camp Creek WRF
New Forsyth/Cumming
Lake Lanier WWTP
Bethelview Road WRF
Flowery Branch WPCP
Water treatment plants
Wastewater treatment plants
Storage locations
Buford Storage
Hall
Gainesville Linwood WRF
Gainesville Flat Creek WRF
Cobb
DeKalb
Atlanta Utoy Creek WRC
Cobb RL Sutton WRF
Cobb South Cobb WRF
Gwinnett Jackson
Creek WRF
Cobb Noonday
Creek WRF
Atlanta South
River WRC
DeKalb
Polebridge WPCP
Fulton Big
Creek WRF
Cobb Northwest
Cobb WRF
Atlanta RM Clayton WRC
Snapfinger
WPCP
Reuse water withdrawals
Cedar
Grove
Bellwood Quarry
DeKalb Scott
Candler WTP
Gwinnett Crooked
Creek WRF
Fulton Johns
Creek WRF
New Southeast Forsyth
WRF/Forsyth Reuse
F Wayne
Hill WRC
Gwinnett
Yellow
River WRF
2
1

m
i
l
e
s
1
3

m
i
l
e
s
2
1

m
i
l
e
s
2
4

m
i
l
e
s
1
7

m
i
l
e
s
Gwinnett
5
4

m
i
l
e
s
L
a
k
e
J
a
c
k
s
o
n
GA 20
McGinnis
Ferry
Pipelines
Infrastructure requirement in the
6 critically affected counties:
Reuse I. Conserve
Estimates of indirect potable
reuse cost/benefit by region
Region
Region
Hall County and Forsyth
County
Gwinnett, DeKalb, Fulton
and Cobb County
Total of all 6 counties
Average yield
(MGD)
Average yield
(MGD)
47
205
252
Cost
($/MG)
Cost
($/MG)
~1,400
~1,000
~1,070
2
Total cost
1
($B)
Total cost
1
($B)
1.2
3.7
4.9
2
Reuse I. Conserve
1. Total cost in 2010 dollars 2. Updated to include additional treatment cost (ozone treatment for water and wastewater) above and beyond EPD requirements based on feedback from water
providers
I. Conserve Reuse
Non-potable reuse: top 10 irrigation users
Top 10 irrigation users (golf course and parklands) in 6 county system
County
County
Gwinnett
Forsyth
Hall
Fulton
Total
Pipelines
(size in inches)
Pipelines
(size in inches)
10 miles (18")
24 miles (18")
3 miles (12")
5 miles (18")
7 miles (18")
Capital cost ($M)
Capital cost ($M)
$24.5
$63.5
$12
$17
$117M
Peak reuse demand
1
Peak reuse demand
1
2 MGD
3 MGD
2 MGD
2 MGD
9 MGD
Equivalent to $111M in
2010 dollars (PV terms)
Equivalent to 3 AAD-MGD
(use peaking factor of 3
for irrigation use)
1. Peak demand is seasonal high months of June to August
I. Conserve Reuse
Non-potable reuse: infrastructure requirement
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Water Reclamation Plants
1 F Wayne Hill WRC
2 Cauley Creek WRF
3 Fowler WRF
4 Cumming WRF
5 Dick Creek WRF
6 Windermere WRF
7 Hamptons WRF
8 Flowery Branch WRF
9 Laurel Springs WRF
10 Skake Rag WRF (planning stage)
85
985
400
8
Existing Reuse Mains
Possible Reuse Mains
Preliminary study of rainwater harvesting and
stormwater reuse options suggest limited potential
1. For a single family residence: Assumes upfront capital cost of $12.5K, refurbishment cost of $800 every 7 yrs, operating cost of $500/yr over 50 years; yield of 100 150 gallons/day 2.
Texas water development board website (http://www.twdb.state.tx.us/iwt/reuse/projects/stormwater/milestone.html)
Source: Discussions between Task Force staff and Georgia Association of Water Professionals (GAWP), local rainwater harvesting system provider; Technical Advisor Panel
Rainwater harvesting
Rainwater harvesting
Localized capture and storage of
rainwater for irrigation and non-potable
indoor uses
Stormwater reuse
Stormwater reuse
Stormwater runoff stored in large surface
ponds and used as a source of water for
non-potable use, typically irrigation
Preliminary analysis suggests
residential use is very expensive
Cost efficiency of ~$10,000+/MG
1
Water professionals raise serious
concerns about public health
implications of this option
Potential opportunity exists for
commercial use costs and yield are
very site specific
Capture of stormwater partially
addressed by reservoir pump-storage
options evaluated by the Task Force
River water pumped at high flows
(during and after storm events) for
storage and subsequent use
A full cost/benefit analysis (with the
value of reducing urban runoff etc.) is
outside the scope of Task Force effort
Potentially leverage detailed study by
Texas Water Development Board;
report expected 12/31/09
2
Reuse I. Conserve
Conserve
Reuse
Pricing
Loss Reduction
Residential water and wastewater rates in City of Atlanta
are significantly higher than other US cities
19.0
43.3
47.0
48.4
48.5
49.4
51.9
51.9
53.8
57.3
62.6
75.4
77.7
80.4
86.5
123.1
0 50 100 150
Los Angeles, CA
Philadelphia, PA
St. Petersburg, FL
San Francisco, CA
City of Atlanta, GA
Honolulu, HI
San Diego, CA
Chicago, IL
Tampa, FL
Dollars per month
Boston, MA
Charlotte, NC
Jacksonville, FL
Dallas, TX
Orlando, FL
Houston, TX
Indianapolis, IN
Residential Water and Wastewater combined monthly charge for
consumption of 6,750 Gallons per month
I. Conserve Conservation pricing
Source: Miami Dade County Water & Sewer Department (WASD), 2008
While city of Atlanta rates are high (driven by wastewater
prices), the rest of Metro District utilities rates are lower
Residential water charges by utilities
in the metro water district
Residential water charges by utilities
in the metro water district
Residential wastewater charges by
utilities in the metro water district
Residential wastewater charges by
utilities in the metro water district
0
50
100
150
200
250
2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000 10,000 12,000 14,000 16,000
Utilities with Metro District,
other than city of ATL
Average
City of ATL
Monthly Consumption (GPM)
Monthly Bill ($)
0
50
100
150
200
250
Monthly Bill ($)
10,000 12,000 14,000 16,000 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000
Monthly Consumption (GPM)
Note: GPM Gallons Per Month
Source: GEFA, UNC Environmental Finance Center Tables of Rate Structures and Bills (May 2009)
Metro water district has made significant progress in
adopting increasing block rate structures
Increasing block rate structures account for
93% of structures in Metro District
Increasing block rate structures serve 99%
of population in Metro District
93
41
49
5
7
2
0
20
40
60
80
100
0
Metro water district
3
GA state
Other
Decreasing block
Uniform rate
Increasing block
Percentage of rate structures
99
77
18
0
0
20
40
60
80
100
1
0
Metro water district
1
4
GA state
Other
Decreasing block
Uniform rate
Increasing block
Percentage of population served
However, rate structures vary in their effectiveness in
sending a conservation message to consumers
Increasing block structure: Price per unit of water increases as consumption increases. It is a tiered rate structure that may have 2 or more price tiers based on consumption levels
Uniform rate structure: Price per unit of water remains constant regardless of consumption
Decreasing block structure: Price per unit of water decreases as consumption increases
Source: GEFA & UNC Environmental Finance Center table of Rate Structures and Bills (May 2009); Possible rounding errors
Many Metro district rate structures are effectively flat for
average consumers
Scenario: Heavy water user (consuming 15K GPM) drops
consumption 60% to average levels (6K GPM)
1
Scenario: Heavy water user (consuming 15K GPM) drops
consumption 60% to average levels (6K GPM)
1
30
40
50
60
70
80
Metro district
rate structures
% reduction
in water bill
60
Actual utility rate structure examples:
highlight variation in rate structure design
Actual utility rate structure examples:
highlight variation in rate structure design
GPM tier Rate (per 1000 gal)
0 2000 $0 (Base Charge - $19.75)
2001 - 4000 $5.34
4001 - 6000 $6.67 125%
6001 - 10000 $10.68 200%
>10000 $17.09 320%
GPM tier Rate (per 1000 gal)
0 2000 $0 (Base Charge - $17.60)
2001 - 20000 $3.08
>20000 $4.18
Scenario tests steepness of the underlying rate structure
If bill decreases by more than 60%, the rate structure
is increasing block
increasing block
behavior
uniform/ decreasing
block behavior
Note: 1. Average metro district residential consumption = 6000 GPM, Peak consumption (2.5x average) = 15000 GPM; GPM Gallons Per Month
Source: GEFA & UNC Environmental Finance Center table of Rate Structures and Bills (May 2009)
Pricing option considered
Option Description Rationale Key Challenges
Timing
(years)
Residential
conservation
pricing
Institute steeper residential
increasing block rate
structures by increasing
marginal prices at high
consumption levels, with the
intent of reducing outdoor
water use.
Shifts financial burden from
essential uses towards non-
essential uses, promoting
conservation while keeping
minimum level of services
affordable
Economically efficient approach
relative to non-pricing measures
Readily enforceableminimal
enforcement costs
Less effective for wealthy
communities, as compared
with non-pricing measures
Less effective where non-
essential demand and/or
seasonal peaking are lower
Utility revenue stream will be
more unstable, varying with
seasonal demand
Impacts urban agriculture
industry viability
13
Source: Technical Advisor Panel
Conservation pricing yield and cost estimates
Option
Yield
(MGD) $/MG
Timing
(yrs)
4 - 7 Institute steeper increasing block rate structures for
residential (single family + multi-family) users to reduce
outdoor water use
Opportunity sized using current rate structures,
focusing increases on subset of utilities with evidence
of higher potential
Assumes marginal price increases at high
consumption levels (~14,000 Gallons per Month
(GPM); where average is ~6,000 GPM)
1 - 3 ~100 -
200
1
Note: 1. Assumes a cost per utility of ~$250K, 55 utilities impacted and a project life of 50 years; comparable to estimate in current Metro plan, Table 4-2
Source: MNGWPD Water Supply and Water Conservation Plan (May 2009), Table 4-2
Pricing focusing on addressing residential outdoor use
Rationale for scope of pricing option
Why isn't indoor use addressed?
Discretionary outdoor demand (non-essential use) is more responsive to pricing changes
relative to indoor demand (essential use)
To avoid double counting of water savings with other indoor efficiency programs being
evaluated by Task Force
Why aren't commercial users addressed?
Conservation pricing savings from commercial outdoor use already addressed by Metro
water plan i.e. Potential for incremental savings is minimal
Most commercial users have irrigation meters for outdoor use
1
Current Metro plan recommends a steep irrigation rate (at least 200% of base rate) for
irrigation meters
Savings from adoption of proposed irrigation pricing measures already accounted for
in Metro area demand projections
Commercial outdoor use being addressed by rain sensor water efficiency option being
evaluated by Task Force
1. Based on working session between Task Force staff and Georgia Association of Water Professionals (GAWP)
Frequently asked questions on pricing option evaluation
Why aren't pricing savings higher?
Option addresses residential outdoor water use only, out of conservatism
Degree of price increase for any given rate structure is limited, to minimize consumer 'shock'
Analysis uses conservative estimate of addressable outdoor consumption (50% of total
outdoor consumption); detailed demand study per utility required for a precise estimate
What degree of price increase is assumed?
Varies by utility; derived from utility categorization by relative conservation pricing potential
High potential: Wtd. avg. increase
1
of ~69%, addressable consumption of ~4 MGD
Mid potential: Wtd. avg. increase
1
Low potential: Wtd. avg. increase
1
What yield can be expected through more aggressive price increase?
As an illustration, consider the hypothetical scenario that Metro district utilities raise their
marginal price at a consumption of 14K GPM, to match that of city of Atlanta
Under this scenario, implied wtd. avg. price increase
1
is ~152%, yielding 13 24 MGD; this
range represents a theoretical upper bound
1. Denotes weighted average (by addressable outdoor consumption) increase to marginal price at a consumption of 14,000 GPM Note: GPM Gallons Per Month
Six criteria used to rank utility conservation potential
Utilities ranked from 1 (high) to 3 (low) on each criterion; weighted average for overall ranking
Criteria Logic
Weight
(%)
Marginal price of water Utilities with lower marginal prices have greater conservation potential
MP at 14,000 GPM for combined (indoor/outdoor) rate structures
MP at 10,000 GPM for irrigation rate structures
Utilities that provide smaller financial incentives for reduction in use have
greater conservation potential. Usage reduction scenarios:
60% reduction (15,000 to 6,000 GPM, combined rate structures)
100% reduction (10,000 to 0 GPM, irrigation rate structures)
Indicators evaluated:
% change in total bill
Absolute ($) change in total bill
Demand seasonality Utilities with greater peaking ratio (ratio of summer use to winter use) have
greater conservation potential
19
Preferred rank order:
Increasing block > seasonal rates > uniform rates > decreasing rates
Median household income Communities with higher income have lower conservation potential 2
Poverty level Communities with lower poverty have lower conservation potential 2
24
Financial incentive for
demand reduction
21
21
Rate structure type 11
1
2
3
4
5
6
Ranking used to categorize utilities into three groups
based on relative capacity to improve pricing signals
Source: Technical Advisor Panel analysis and experience
Utilities categorized into three groups based on relative
capacity to improve pricing signals
Comparison of key rate structure characteristics across groups
Comparison of key rate structure characteristics across groups
10.50
11.64
23.38
1.90
5.50
9.20
0
5
10
15
20
25
High Potential Mid Potential Low Potential
Average Marginal Price
@ 14K
1
GPM ($)
87.71
99.08
210.44
16.60
41.50
82.16
0
50
100
150
200
250
Average reduction in
total bill
2
($)
Pop Served
(Millions)
0.4 3.4 1.1 0.4 3.4 1.1
# Utilities
21 21 21 21 21 21
Min
Max
(Atlanta)
(Atlanta)
Outdoor water reduction scenario:
Household drops total consumption
33%, from 15K to 10K GPM
Significant variability in absolute marginal price
levels for outdoor consumption
Significant variability in rate structure steepness
across utilities
1. Pertains to combined water and sewer rate structures 2. Total bill savings for 33% reduction in consumption (15K to 10K GPM)
Approach to estimate residential outdoor water savings
through pricing
Residential outdoor
consumption
~86 MGD
1
Rationale
Rationale
Utility categorization based
on relative capacity to
improve conservation
pricing signal
High potential
~8 MGD
Low potential
~20 MGD
Mid potential
~58 MGD
Consumption by
group
Addressable
consumption (MGD)
Weighted average
50% of total outdoor
consumption assumed to
be discretionary (above
14K GPM)
Varies by utility - derived
from utility categorization
3
.
Rates steepened while
limiting degree of change
increase in marginal
price at 14K GPM
-0.2 to -0.4
2
~4
~69%
0.5 1.0
~10
~6%
0.1 0.2
~29
~52%
3 6
4 7 MGD
Price elasticity of
outdoor demand
Incremental savings
(MGD)
1. Estimated using per capita outdoor water consumption from Metro water plan (May 2009), Table 3-2 and data on population served by each utility from GEFA/UNC Rate Survey (May 2009)
2. Water and Wastewater pricing, EPA 832-F-03-027; Olmstead et al, Comparing price and non-price approaches to urban water conservation; Metro plan assumptions; TAP estimates
3. Assumes Marg. Price (MP) of utilities at 14K GPM would reach the avg. of their peers in the next category. MP for low pot. utilities assumed to reach 75th percentile within the category
Note: Numbers may not add up due to rounding errors; GPM Gallons Per Month; Source: Technical Advisor Panel Analysis
Degree of marginal price increase for each utility based on
categorization
1. 75th percentile of all prices in the low potential category 2. Marginal price increase for high potential group varies from 0 370%, with a weighted average of 69% 3. Marginal price increase
for mid potential group varies from 15 145%, with a weighted average of 52% 4. Marginal price increase for low potential group varies from 0 50%, with a weighted average of 6%
10.50
11.64
23.38
5.73
8.98
13.45
1.90
5.50
9.20
0
5
10
15
20
25
Marginal Price
@ 14K GPM ($)
Price benchmark
for low potential
utilities
Price benchmark
for high potential
utilities
Price benchmark
for mid potential
utilities
13.75
1
~69 %
2
~52 %
3
~6 %
4
(Atlanta)
Premise: Steepen rates while limiting degree of change
Min
Avg
Max
Pricing: general recommendations
Increase marginal prices of residential outdoor water by raising rates of utilities with high
conservation potential to be more in line with their higher priced peers in the District
Performance Indicator: Marginal price at 14,000 gallons per month
Timeframe: 1 - 3 years
Improve customer awareness through effective billing practices
Communicate historical water use and marginal rates on monthly customer bill
Bill at least on a monthly basis to send more immediate price signals
Use utility billing data to target communication to irrigators
Adopt billing best-practices
Distinguish between different customer classes within your billing system
Require separate irrigation meters for all in-ground irrigation systems
Sub-meter multi family residential and non-residential customers
Institute a program for customers who cannot afford bills (address affordability issues)
1
2
3
Conserve
Reuse
Pricing
Loss Reduction
Leak abatement options estimated to yield ~8-10 MGD by
2012, en route to 27 MGD incremental savings by 2035
Option
Yield
in 2012
(MGD)
Yield in
2035
(MGD)
Leak detection
Valve exercising
Pressure
management
27
3 Replacement of
aged pipeline
infrastructure
Cost
efficiency
1
($/MG)
Total
cost
($M)
Capital
cost ($M)
$1,200 $17
$1,184 -
$2,368
Timing
8-10
$51,000
- $100,000
$262
$1,184 -
$2,368
Savings to begin
immediately;
~0.6 Savings to begin
immediately;
Leak
abatement
2
Pipeline
replacement
1
2
I. Conserve
Pipeline replacement, while required in some areas, not an overall cost-effective
measure to address water supply. Leak abatement (ie, rapid response) far more
cost efficient
Loss reduction
1. Based upon 25 years of lifetime yield for all measures
2. Set 10% water loss goals for all utilities, versus current plan which is to set water loss goals by individual utilities
Goal is to reduce current 16% water loss rate by 3% in 09
District Plan and 3% additional considered by Task Force
Metro Water District water demand forecast in 2035 and loss reduction options
Achieve 10% AWWA standard with 3% further loss reduction
Total of 63 MGD
savings in 2035,
reduces loss
rate by 6% from
16%10%
1,011
-3%
Demand w/ all conservation measures
including loss reduction
(09 District Plan)
Demand w/ conservation and incremental
loss reduction evaluated by Task Force
0
1,000
1,100
1,046
982
Projected demand w/ all conservation
measures except loss reduction
(09 District Plan)
-3%
1,050
Water demand
in 2035 (MGD)
35.5 MGD
(3% reduction)
27 MGD
(3% reduction)
Potential savings evaluated
by TF additional to current 09
plan, reduces loss rate from
13% 10%
Projected savings in current
09 plan
1
, reduces loss rate
from 16% 13%
I. Conserve Loss reduction
1. Plan assumes reduction of all non-revenue water above 10% by half by county
Source: Metro North Georgia District Water Plan (May 2009), Technical Advisory Panel analysis;
Loss reduction options considered (I)
Leak
abatement
Pipeline
replacement
1
2
Description of solution Rationale Key challenges Timing
Expedited leak abatement program compared to
current plan, targeting lower loss rate goal
1. Leak detection component to detect and
repair active leaks in water pipelines
2. Valve exercising component to make sure
valves are functioning properly, as they are
used to isolate pipeline breaks and prevent
water flow through those breaks
3. Pressure management component to use
pressure sustaining valves to reduce water
line breaks by reducing pressure of water
during low usage periods
(ie. at night when most water
breaks occur)
Targeted and cost
effective solutions
to actively reduce
water loss through
leaks and breaks
as they are
occurring in the
system
Need regulatory
framework to ensure all
utilities conduct water
audits to AWWA/IWA
standards and have
robust leak abatement
program
Need accurate utility-
level data for tailored
loss reduction program
and goals vs. arbitrary
benchmarks
Funding for programs
Savings to
begin
immediately
Ongoing capital program for water distribution
pipeline repair and replacement to rehabilitate
old pipes
Ongoing repair and
replacement
program can
prevent future
leaks, resulting in
less investment on
leak detection
programs
High cost of pipeline
replacement program
Savings to
begin
immediately
Cost curve for loss reduction is non-linear
Loss reduction avg cost of ~$5,000/MG at loss rate of 13%, but only ~$2,500/MG at rate of 15%
Cost of water loss reduction in $/MG
across initial water loss rates
(11% 10.5% reduction of 0.5%)
(13% 11.5% reduction of 1.5%)
(20% 15%
reduction of 5%)
(32% 21%
reduction of 11%)
5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Initial water loss rate (%)
0
2,500
25,000
5,000
7,500
Average cost of 50%
reduction from initial
loss rate to 10% target
($/MG)
Source: Metro North Georgia District Water Plan (May 2009) data provided by ARC,
Detailed cost estimates for leak abatement programs:
leak detection, valve exercising and pressure mgmt
Leak detection
Leak detection
Valve exercising
Valve exercising
Pressure management
Pressure management
Water savings in 2035: 20 MGD
Cost efficiency: ~ $1,400/MG
Cost efficiency: ~ $2,100/MG
Overall water savings in 2035: 27 MGD
Overall cost efficiency: ~ $1,200/MG
Population 6,000,000 persons
Population per metered unit 3 persons
# of meters 2,000,000 meters
Miles of water main 36,000 miles
# of crew persons per mile 0.003 Persons
Estimate of persons to
perform leak detection
107 Persons
Estimate cost per person $35 $/hour
Hours per year 2,000 hours/year
Estimated cost per year $7,466,667 per year
PV of total cost: $130,018,169
Population per metered unit 3 persons
# of meters 2,000,000 meters
Miles of water main 36,000 miles
# of crew persons per mile 0.002 Persons
Estimate of persons to perform
valve exercising
80 Persons
Estimate cost per person $35 $/hour
Hours per year 2,000 hours/year
Estimated cost per year $5,600,000 per year
PV of total cost $97,513,627
# households 2,000,000 household
HHs/pressure sustaining valve 5,000 HH/PSV
# of PSVs 400 valves
Unit cost of PSV $50,000 per valve
Total cost of PSV $20,000,000
PV of installing PSVs over 10-
year period
$17,060,406
Service cost for PSVs $1,000,000 per year
PV of service/maintenance cost $17,413,148
PV of total cost $34,473,553
Cost efficiency: ~ $374/MG
Note: Individual program savings not additive
Detailed cost estimates for pipeline replacement
Estimate of water savings Value Units
Current Daily Use 680 MGD
% Water Savings 0.5% %
Water Savings 3.4 MGD
Average Savings at 25 years 5 MGD
Average Savings over 25 years (0 at begin, 5 at 2035) 2.5 MGD
Estimate of cost
Estimate of Large Transmission Mains
Miles of Transmission Mains/mg 3 Miles/MGD
Annual Water Use 680 MGD
Total Miles of Transmission Mains 2,267 Miles
Estimated Value of Transmission Mains/Mile $1,500,000 $/Mile
Estimated Value of Transmission Mains $3,400,000,000 $
Rehabilitation Costs per year as % 2% %
Rehabilitation Costs per year $68,000,000 $
PV of Annual Rehabilitation Costs $1,184,094,043 $
Cost/water savings Ratio
Averaged over 25 years $51,341 $/MG
Use upper bound
of $3,000,000/mile
Overview of key options: Capture
Capture
Reservoirs and quarries
Groundwater and ASR
Desalination
Water quality / treatment
200 1,800 1,600
0
1,400 MGD saved/
created
800 600 1,000 400 2,000
South GA
GW system
1,600
Hard Labor
Creek reservoir
Glades
reservoir
Richland
creek
reservoir
410 $/MG wtd avg
2
Capture (2020)
500
15,000
Unit cost of savings ($/MG)
1,000
2,000
Capture (2015)
6,000
1,200
6,000
Savannah
desalination
plant
Newton Bear
Creek reservoir
Many capture options are cost effective, potential long-term
solutions
Reservoir
expansions,
groundwater
Note: 1. Shortfall = Projected 2020 demand with conservation in Metro plan Estimated 2020 supply (Lanier and Chatt. withdrawals per ruling, all other sources at current levels). Assumes
demand continues to grow until year of shortfall. Other approaches could assume demand decreases as result of ruling, thus reducing implied gap. This analysis uses existing plan demand as
baseline. Shortfall only accounts for counties with deficit 2. Weighted average $/MG calculated based on options that can address 2020 gap at lowest cost
Certain option yields may not be additive due to interaction effects; cost of transfer options do not account for return to originating basin
Source: Technical Advisor Panel preliminary estimates
Estimated 2020 shortfall
1
~350 MGD
Capital required to address ~ $2.3B
Wtd average cost efficiency ($/MG) ~ 410
II. Capture
Total of 15 reservoir options analyzed for costs, yields,
feasibility
Glades
Big Haynes Creek
Detailed analysis conducted for:
4 reservoir expansions
8 new reservoir builds
1 dredging option
2 types of quarry conversion
options (could apply to ~10 sites)
Counties bordering metro area
MNGWPD
1
counties
Potential reservoir expansion
Potential reservoir new build
NW of Forsyth
Etowah River
Tussahaw Creek
Dog River
Hard Labor Creek
E of Gwinnett Richland Creek (x2)
Newton County
Bear Creek
South Fulton
Bear Creek
Potential dredging option
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
9
11 8
12
13
Morgan Falls Dam
10
Reservoirs II. Capture
1. Metropolitan North Georgia Water Planning District
Potential yields, unit costs very sensitive to min flow policy
Yields up to 10x higher and unit costs up to 50% lower possible with lower instream requirement
Big Haynes Creek
Dog River
Tussahaw Creek
Etowah #1
Newton County Bear Creek
Hard Labor Creek
1
South Fulton Bear Creek
Hall County Glades
Richland Creek (I)
Richland Creek (II)
New reservoir NW of Forsyth
New reservoir E of Gwinnett
Small quarry
Large quarry
Potential reservoir option
Potential reservoir option
Estimated yield (MGD)
Estimated yield (MGD)
Unit cost of yield
($/MG)
Unit cost of yield
($/MG)
50
85
85
10
40
20
40
50
35
15
50
90
80
35
100
135
20
205
45
> 10x
~20%
Yield estimated
based on storage volume
Site-specific
study
A7Q10
30% AAF or
M7Q10
305
510
620
700
730
780
615
500
580
725
550
350
260
325
305
1,275
1,175
1,000
600 - 1,200
-50%
-10%
Yield estimation method
A7Q10 policy
vs. 30% AAF
~$315/MG
lower cost
-OR-
~$32M/yr
for equal yield
Reservoirs II. Capture
1. Updated cost estimates based on input from Hard Labor Creek engineering team Source: Technical Advisory Panel
II. Capture Reservoirs
Cost, yield estimates for reservoir options (I)
Option
Min flow policy
assumption Yield (MGD) Cost ($/MG) Timing (years)
Big Haynes Creek A7Q10
30% AAF
Dog River A7Q10 205 325 8-12
South Fulton Bear Creek A7Q10 135 350 8-12
Hall County Glades A7Q10 100 550 8-12
A7Q10
Site-specific study
M7Q10
Site specific study
30% AAF
30% AAF
A7Q10
A7Q10
8-12 305 45
Dog River 50 305 8-12
Tussahaw Creek 20 260 8-12
Etowah River Dam #1 40 615 8-12
Newton County Bear Creek 20 780 8-12
South Fulton Bear Creek 10 700 8-12
Richland Creek (I) 35 725 10-12
Hall County Glades 85 620 8-12
Hard Labor Creek
1
40 730 8-12
Richland Creek (II)
80 580 10-12
Expand
Build
1. Updated cost estimates based on input from Hard Labor Creek engineering team
Note: Estimates based on 50 year project life
Cost, yield estimates for reservoir options (II)
Option
Min flow policy
assumption Yield (MGD) Cost ($/MG) Timing (years)
New reservoir NW of Forsyth 30% AAF
New reservoir NW of Forsyth A7Q10 90 500 8-12
New reservoir E of Gwinnett A7Q10 50 1,175 8-12
30% AAF
Ample stream flow, yield
limited by storage volume
Ample stream flow, yield
limited by storage volume
8-12 510 85
New reservoir E of Gwinnett 50 1,275 8-12
'Small' quarries
(combined total of 3 quarries)
15 1,000 8-12
'Large' quarry
(1 large active quarry)
35 600-1,200
1
8-12
Morgan Falls Dam
(Bull Sluice Lake)
Generic
site
reservoirs
Quarries
Dredge
Estimates are pending further analysis; potential yields could be highly sensitive to
Buford Dam operations assumptions, which the Task Force lacks at this time
1. Depends significantly on acquisition cost
Four primary filters used to identify reservoir sites for
detailed cost/ benefit analysis
Potential reservoir options
Proximity to shortfall area
Within 15 county Metro North GA Water Planning District, or
Within a county bordering the district
Yield
Estimated to provide at least 20 MGD incremental yield
Cost effectiveness proxy + analytical resource prioritization
Timing (speed to impact)
Existing reservoir that could be expanded (generally quicker)
Potential new reservoirs in permitting / consideration phase
Environmental impact
Expansions generally lower impact than new builds
1
2
3
4
Resulting
consideration set
Specific "instream flow" policy dictates amount of water
available to withdraw from streams
Concept
Water withdrawers must leave some amount of water in streams to avoid
harming aquatic life
Issue
How much water must be left in stream, and therefore how much is available
for water users to withdraw?
Options Varying opinions, but three statistically calculated values normally referenced...
Annual 7Q10
Annual 7Q10
Monthly 7Q10
Monthly 7Q10
30% AAF
30% AAF
Instream water
requirement
Lowest average flow
expected to occur for 7
consecutive days once
every 10 years
30% of stream's annual
average flow
Similar in magnitude to
Monthly 7Q10
Same as Annual 7Q10, but
calculated for each month
More water left instream
during wet season
Actual values highly site-specific, but generally...
Water available
for withdrawal
Most Less Least
Alternatively, a site-specific study can be completed to
determine minimum flow requirements
Reservoirs: assumptions
For existing reservoirs that do not currently incorporate pumped storage, evaluate
increased yield achieved by adding capability where feasible
For reservoirs in permitting/planning, evaluate incremental yield achieved by building
higher dam or using lower instream flow requirement
All yields estimated via sophisticated modeling software, based on "usable storage"
levels, and minimum instream flow as indicated per option
Wherever applicable, cost of conveyance from reservoir to a new distribution
network was estimated using standardized, across-team assumptions
Costs include 30% contingency factor for dam structures
No cost included for potential water quality compatibility concerns with distribution
system interconnections
Yield
Costs
Frequently asked questions on reservoir estimates
How were costs developed?
Estimated cost of infrastructure upgrades (expansions) or new infrastructure (new builds) based on
previous and current projects effectively a rough "bid" as if a new project
Used standardized across-team assumptions where applicable (including contingencies)
What do these costs include?
Initial capital expense + estimated operating expense over a 50 year period
Includes legal, permitting, design, engineering, land acquisition, infrastructure, environmental mitigation
(15%), treatment, new pumps/pipes to distribution if required
Actual dam infrastructure costs include 30% contingency factor
Are these values aggressive (low cost)?
Costs represent reasonable approximation of mid-range, conservative estimates
How do these estimates compare?
GEFA study notes "rough estimate" of $4-10M per MGD for reservoir expansions or builds
Task Force estimates range ~$4-6M per MGD for reservoir expansions
Task Force estimates range ~$8-19M per MGD for new reservoir builds (~$5-11M excluding pump +
pipe infrastructure to distribution systems)
Reservoir cost estimates fall within industry guidelines
Expansions at lower end of range, with new builds middle to high end
0
5
10
15
New builds
$10M/
MGD
2
$4M/
MGD
2
All other costs
Pump/pipe to
distribution
Expansions
$/MGD
1
Task Force reservoir average cost estimates
compared to GEFA study guidelines
1. Total cost (capital expense + operating expenses) per MGD of new supply yield 2. Endpoints of $4M-$10M per MGD range reported in GEFA study as guidelines for reservoir costs based
on contemporary experience in Georgia
Source: GEFA study "Georgia Inventory and Survey of Feasible Sites for Water Supply Reservoirs", October 2008
Reservoir options considered (I)
Option Description Rationale Key challenges
Timing
(years)
Big Haynes
Creek Reservoir
Add pumped storage from
Yellow River (when surplus
available in this larger nearby
river, pump into reservoir for
storage rather than allowing it
to flow downstream unused);
Rockdale county water
treatment plant (WTP) treat
and sell extra yield to Gwinnett
Not an interbasin transfer (IBT),
not a long distance movement
of water, not an interstate basin,
significant new yield, increased
water reuse, existing purchase
connection between counties
Public acceptance of indirect
wastewater reuse
8-12
Dog River
Reservoir
Raise dam height, add
pumped storage from
Chattahoochee River; Douglas
county WTP treat and sell
extra yield to Cobb County
Not an IBT, not a long distance
movement of water, reasonable
new yield, increased water
reuse, existing purchase
Corps of Engineers (COE) permit
for reservoir expansion, Public
acceptance of indirect reuse of
wastewater, interstate stream
8-12
Tussahaw
Creek Reservoir
Add pumped storage from
Jackson Lake (at Newton/
Butts/ Jasper lines); Henry Co
treat and sell extra yield to
DeKalb County
Not an IBT, not an interstate
stream, existing purchase
Limited new yield, long distance
movement of water, new use of
Lake Jackson (Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission (FERC)
and Georgia Power approval)
8-12
Etowah River
Dam 1 NRCS
Reservoir
Raise dam height, convert
from flood control to water
supply, pump yield to Forsyth
County WTP
Existing reservoir, not an IBT COE permit for new water supply
reservoir, interstate stream, limited
yield
8-12
E
x
p
a
n
d
1
2
3
4
Source: Technical Advisory Panel
Reservoir options considered (II)
Timing
(years)
Newton County
Bear Creek
Reservoir
Build reservoir, add pumped
storage from Jackson Lake,
Newton Co sell 20 MGD from
Cornish Creek to Gwinnett
Not an IBT, not an interstate
stream
Limited new yield, long distance,
new use of Lake Jackson (FERC
and Georgia Power approval, COE
permit for new reservoir
8-12
Hard Labor
Creek
Reservoir
Build reservoir, pumped
storage from Apalachee, new
WTP, pipeline to Gwinnett, sell
excess water to Gwinnett
Reservoir permitted, dam
designed, not an IBT,
significant new yield, strong
local support
Long distance movement of water
8-12
South Fulton
Bear Creek
Reservoir
storage from Chattahoochee,
new WTP, pipeline to Atlanta,
sell excess water to South
Fulton and City of Atlanta
Not an IBT, significant new
yield, local government support,
increase water reuse, existing
purchase connection between
counties
Public acceptance of indirect
wastewater reuse, interstate
stream, COE permit for new
reservoir, City of Atlanta opposition
8-12
Hall County
Glades
Reservoir
storage from Chattahoochee,
new WTP, half yield to
Gainesville, half to Gwinnett
No new IBT, very significant
yield, local support, land owned
by local government, located to
serve several governments
COE permit for reservoir, interstate
basin, long distance movement of
water
8-12
Paulding
County
Richland Creek
Reservoir (#1)
storage from Etowah, pipe to
Paulding Co WTP
Significant new yield, reservoir
land purchased, strong local
government support
COE permit for reservoir, potential
IBT, interstate basin
10-12
Paulding
County
Richland Creek
Reservoir (#2)
Build larger reservoir, pumped
storage from Etowah, new
WTP, sell excess yield to Cobb
and/or Bartow counties
Very significant new yield
COE permit for new reservoir,
potential IBT, interstate basin
10-12
B
u
i
l
d
5
6
8
9
7
10
Reservoir options considered (III)
Timing
(years)
New reservoir
NW of Forsyth
Build reservoir to supply
Forsyth County, pumping raw
water to the Forsyth WTP
Very significant new yield, no
IBT
COE permit for new reservoir,
interstate stream, EPD approval of
instream flow
8-12
New reservoir E
of Gwinnett
Build reservoir with pumped
storage east of Gwinnett
County, pumping raw water to
Gwinnett WTP
Significant new yield Potential IBT, potential interstate
stream, long distance movement of
water, COE permit for new reservoir,
EPD approval of instream flow
8-12
Dredge Bull
Sluice Lake
(behind Morgan
Falls dam)
Dredge Bull Sluice Lake
(behind Morgan Falls Dam) to
create additional storage and
provide incremental yield to
existing water treatment plants
Increase capacity of Bull
Sluice Lake; some additional
yield for Cobb County, City of
Atlanta
Limited new yield, environmental
permitting; access to land (purchase
or lease) for dewatering/loading; local
resident impacts (heavy truck traffic,
noise); damage to public roads,
wildlife impacts; 2.75 years of field
operations; significant permitting time
8-12
Convert 'small'
quarry (~3 BG)
to water storage
Add pumped storage from any
sizeable stream, pump raw
water to an existing WTP
No reservoir needed, may
help augment localized
storage needs
Limited new yield, few inactive
quarries available in proximity to area
of shortfall
8-12
Convert 'large'
quarry (~15 BG)
to water storage
Add pumped storage from any
sizeable stream within 10
miles, pump raw water 10 miles
to an existing WTP
No reservoir needed,
significant new yield
Long distance movement of water,
only one 'large' quarry in area and it
is still active, significant acquisition
cost likely
8-12
B
u
i
l
d
Q
u
a
r
r
i
e
s
D
r
e
d
g
e
11
12
14
13
15
Reservoir options submitted by Task Force
Source Option
Yield
(MGD)
Expand Raccoon Creek #8 11
10
2
Expand Etowah River #1 24 Included in detailed analysis set
Habersham
EMC
Build Habersham Reservoir TBD
(max <99)
Impounding a major stream not likely to be permitted
Costs higher (longer transport), yields lower (in-stream
vs. off-stream pump storage from same source) than Hall
County Glades Reservoir
Expand Ellijay River #1
Expand Talking Rock
Creek #13
Comparison to options
considered by TAP team
Similar location/costs, lower yield than Richland Creek
options
Could it be implemented more quickly?
No direct impact to affected counties w/o adding high
transport costs
No direct impact to affected counties w/o adding high
transport costs
GSWCC
Source: "Inventory and Assessment of USDA/Soil and Water Conservation District Watershed Dams" (Mar 16, 2009); email communications from GSWCC and Habersham EMC
Detailed cost estimates for options (I)
Team: Reservoirs
Option
Pump &
pipe
($M)
Water
treat-
ment
($M)
Other
capital
costs
1
($M)
Total
($M)
Annual
O&M
($M)
Annual
res.
maint
($M)
117 0.5
0.5
Dog River (A7Q10)
391 438 122 951 8.9 0.4 0.5 9.8 1,202
South Fulton Bear Creek (A7Q10)
332 300 87 719 5.6 0.2 0.5 6.3 882
Hall County Glades (A7Q10)
364 226 213 803 7.2 0.3 0.5 8.0 1,008
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
Hall County Glades (30% AAF)
355 201 226 782 6.8 0.3 0.5 7.6 978
Richland Creek (I)
114 89 138 341 4.0 0.2 0.5 4.7 462
0.5
119
54
102
54
219
27
Total
($M)
Total
cost
2
($M)
185
108
112
10
158
8
151
68
260
1.5
1.4
1.2
Etowah River Dam #1
91 351 3.5 0.3 4.3 460
Newton County Bear Creek
163 225 1.7 0.1 2.3 285
Hard Labor Creek
3
58 428 4.1 0.2 4.8 750
South Fulton Bear Creek (30% AAF)
0 95 0.1 0.1 0.6 110
Richland Creek (II)
171 616 7.8 0.3
225
8.6
0.1
837
0.2
262
267
0.1
231
64 95
0
0
0
Annual
Pumping
(Power)
($M)
Big Haynes Creek
0.9
0.7
0.6
Dog River (30% AAF)
Tussahaw Creek
Capital Cost
Capital Cost
Annual Operating Cost
E
x
p
a
n
d
B
u
i
l
d
1. Includes pre-construction, reservoir system infrastructure, and environmental mitigation costs 2. Indicates total cost in 2010$ over the life of the project, discounted at 3% 3. Updated cost
estimates based on input from Hard Labor Creek engineering team
Note: All estimates have been rounded to the nearest tenth, numbers may not add up due to rounding errors
Detailed cost estimates for options (II)
Team: Reservoirs
Option
Pump &
pipe
($M)
Water
treat-
ment
($M)
Other
capital
costs
1
($M)
Total
($M)
Annual
O&M
($M)
Annual
res.
maint
($M)
202 0.5
Reservoir NW of Forsyth (A7Q10)
161 206 283 650 5.3 0.3 0.5 6.1 806
Reservoir E of Gwinnett (A7Q10)
497 122 252 871 7.1 0.3 0.5 7.9 1,073
0.5
0.5
'Large' quarry
78 95 77 - 577
3
250 750 3.6 0.2 0.5 4.3 360 860
122
23
Total
($M)
Total
cost
2
($M)
294
343
34
6.1
7.9
1.7
Morgan Falls dam
(Bull Sluice Lake)
657 0.3
0.3
815
1,170
0.1
962
140 95
161
497
37
Annual
Pumping
(Power)
($M)
Reservoir NW of Forsyth (30% AAF)
5.3
7.1
1.1
Reservoir E of Gwinnett (30% AAF)
'Small' quarry
Capital Cost
Capital Cost
G
e
n
e
r
i
c
Q
u
a
r
r
y
D
r
e
d
g
e
Estimates are pending further analysis; potential yields could be highly sensitive to
Buford Dam operations assumptions, which the Task Force lacks at this time'
1. Includes pre-construction, reservoir system infrastructure, and environmental mitigation costs 2. Indicates total cost in 2010$ over the life of the project, discounted at 3% 3. Highly
uncertain acquisition costs for a large, active quarry
Note: All estimates have been rounded to the nearest tenth, numbers may not add up due to rounding errors
Big Haynes Creek Reservoir
Reservoirs: expansion
Stakeholder
Requires
legislation
Some minor
sensitivities
Water withdrawal
Drinking water
No
Minimal concern, mainly over public acceptance
of indirect wastewater reuse
Instream flow
assumption Yield (MGD) Cost ($/MG) Pre-const Const
A7Q10 45 2-4 6-8 305
Overall
1
8-12
Timing (years)
Timing (years)
Instream
flow
Pump &
pipe
($M)
Water
treatment
($M)
Other
capital
costs
2
($M)
Total
($M)
Annual
O&M
($M)
Annual
res. maint
($M)
A7Q10
0.5
Total
($M)
Total
cost
3
($M)
117 108 0.1 1.5 262 225 0
Annual
Pumping
(Power)
($M)
0.9
Capital Cost
Capital Cost
Yield
Costs
Stakeholder
sensitivity
1. Includes 1 year for reservoir to fill with water 2. Includes pre-construction, reservoir system infrastructure, and environmental mitigation costs 3. Indicates total cost in 2010$ over the life of
the project, discounted at 3% 4. "Annual reservoir maintenance"
Dog River Reservoir
Instream flow
30% AAF
A7Q10
50
205
2-4
2-4
6-8
6-8
305
325
Overall
1
8-12
8-12
Timing (years)
Timing (years)
Yield
Instream
flow
Pump &
pipe
($M)
Water
treatment
($M)
Other
capital
costs
2
($M)
Total
($M)
Annual
O&M
($M)
Annual
res.
maint
4
($M)
30% AAF
A7Q10
0.5
0.5
Total
($M)
Total
cost
3
($M)
119
438
112
122
0.2
0.4
1.4
9.8
267
1,202
231
951
0
391
Annual
Pumping
(Power)
($M)
0.7
8.9
Capital Cost
Capital Cost
Costs
Stakeholder
Requires
legislation
Some significant
sensitivities
Water withdrawal
Drinking water
Safe dams
404
No
Interstate stream, some concern over public
acceptance of indirect wastewater reuse
Stakeholder
sensitivity
Tussahaw Creek Reservoir
Instream flow
A7Q10 20 2-4 6-8 260
Overall
1
8-12
Timing (years)
Timing (years)
Yield
Instream
flow
Pump &
pipe
($M)
Water
treatment
($M)
Other
capital
costs
2
($M)
Total
($M)
Annual
O&M
($M)
Annual
res.
maint
4
($M)
A7Q10
0.5
Total
($M)
Total
cost
3
($M)
54 10 0.1 1.2 95 64 0
Annual
Pumping
(Power)
($M)
0.6
Capital Cost
Capital Cost
Costs
Stakeholder
Requires
legislation
Contentious
Water withdrawal
Drinking water
No
Long movement of water, new use of Jackson
Lake, requires FERC and GA Power approval
Stakeholder
sensitivity
Etowah River Dam #1 Reservoir
Instream flow
Site-specific study 40 2-4 6-8 615
Overall
1
8-12
Timing (years)
Timing (years)
Yield
Instream
flow
Pump &
pipe
($M)
Water
treatment
($M)
Other
capital
costs
2
($M)
Total
($M)
Annual
O&M
($M)
Annual
res.
maint
4
($M)
Site-
specific
study
0.5
Total
($M)
Total
cost
3
($M)
102 158 0.3 4.3 460 351 91
Annual
Pumping
(Power)
($M)
3.5
Capital Cost
Capital Cost
Costs
Stakeholder
Requires
legislation
Some significant
sensitivities
Water withdrawal
Drinking water
Safe dams
404
No
COE permit for new reservoir, EPD approval of
instream flow, interstate stream, limited yield
Stakeholder
sensitivity
Newton County Bear Creek Reservoir
Reservoirs: new build
Instream flow
M7Q10 20 2-4 6-8 780
Overall
1
8-12
Timing (years)
Timing (years)
Yield
Instream
flow
Pump &
pipe
($M)
Water
treatment
($M)
Other
capital
costs
2
($M)
Total
($M)
Annual
O&M
($M)
Annual
res.
maint
4
($M)
M7Q10
0.5
Total
($M)
Total
cost
3
($M)
54 8 0.1 2.3 285 225 163
Annual
Pumping
(Power)
($M)
1.7
Capital Cost
Capital Cost
Costs
Stakeholder
Requires
legislation
Some significant
sensitivities
Water withdrawal
Drinking water
Safe dams
404
No
Long distance movement of water, new use of
Lake Jackson (FERC and Georgia Power Co.
approval , COE permit for new reservoir
Stakeholder
sensitivity
Hard Labor Creek Reservoir
Instream flow
Site-specific study 40 2-4 6-8 730
Overall
1
8-12
Timing (years)
Timing (years)
Yield
Instream
flow
Pump &
pipe
($M)
Water
treatment
($M)
Other
capital
costs
2
($M)
Total
($M)
Annual
O&M
($M)
Annual
res.
maint
4
($M)
Site-
specific
study
0.5
Total
($M)
Total
cost
3
($M)
219 151 0.2 4.8 750 428 58
Annual
Pumping
(Power)
($M)
4.1
Capital Cost
Capital Cost
Costs
5
Stakeholder
Requires
legislation
Some minor
sensitivities
Drinking water No Long distance movement of water
Stakeholder
sensitivity
the project, discounted at 3% 4. "Annual reservoir maintenance" 5. Updated cost estimates based on input from Hard Labor Creek engineering team
South Fulton Bear Creek Reservoir
Instream flow
30% AAF
A7Q10
10
135
2-4
2-4
6-8
6-8
700
350
Overall
1
8-12
8-12
Timing (years)
Timing (years)
Yield
Instream
flow
Pump &
pipe
($M)
Water
treatment
($M)
Other
capital
costs
2
($M)
Total
($M)
Annual
O&M
($M)
Annual
res.
maint
4
($M)
30% AAF
A7Q10
0.5
0.5
Total
($M)
Total
cost
3
($M)
27
300
68
87
0.1
0.2
0.6
6.3
110
882
95
719
0
332
Annual
Pumping
(Power)
($M)
0.1
5.6
Capital Cost
Capital Cost
Costs
Stakeholder
Requires
legislation
Contentious
Water withdrawal
Drinking water
Safe dams
404
Yes (SDS
restriction)
5
Public acceptance of indirect wastewater reuse,
interstate stream, COE permit for new reservoir,
EPD approval of instream flow, City of Atlanta
opposition
Stakeholder
sensitivity
the project, discounted at 3% 4. "Annual reservoir maintenance" 5. Cannot proceed until a new Service Delivery Strategy (SDS) is developed for Fulton County, or HB 406 is passed
exempting multigovernmental reservoirs from the SDS restrictions.
Hall County Glades Reservoir
Instream flow
30% AAF
A7Q10
85
100
2-4
2-4
6-8
6-8
620
550
Overall
1
8-12
8-12
Timing (years)
Timing (years)
Yield
Instream
flow
Pump &
pipe
($M)
Water
treatment
($M)
Other
capital
costs
2
($M)
Total
($M)
Annual
O&M
($M)
Annual
res.
maint
4
($M)
30% AAF
A7Q10
0.5
0.5
Total
($M)
Total
cost
3
($M)
201
226
226
213
0.3
0.3
7.6
8.0
978
1,008
782
803
355
364
Annual
Pumping
(Power)
($M)
6.8
7.2
Capital Cost
Capital Cost
Costs
Stakeholder
Requires
legislation
Contentious
Water withdrawal
Drinking water
Safe dams
404
Yes (IBT)
COE permit for reservoir, interstate basin, EPD
approval of instream flow, long distance
movement of water
Stakeholder
sensitivity
Richland Creek Reservoir (I)
Instream flow
A7Q10 35 2-4 6-8 725
Overall
1
8-12
Timing (years)
Timing (years)
Yield
Instream
flow
Pump &
pipe
($M)
Water
treatment
($M)
Other
capital
costs
2
($M)
Total
($M)
Annual
O&M
($M)
Annual
res.
maint
4
($M)
A7Q10
0.5
Total
($M)
Total
cost
3
($M)
89 138 0.2 4.7 462 341 114
Annual
Pumping
(Power)
($M)
4.0
Capital Cost
Capital Cost
Costs
Stakeholder
sensitivity
Reasons Permits required
Requires
legislation
Contentious
Water withdrawal
Drinking water
Safe dams
404
Yes (IBT)
COE permit for reservoir, potential IBT, interstate
basin, EPD approval of instream flow
Stakeholder
sensitivity
Richland Creek Reservoir (II)
Instream flow
A7Q10 80 2-4 6-8 580
Overall
1
8-12
Timing (years)
Timing (years)
Yield
Instream
flow
Pump &
pipe
($M)
Water
treatment
($M)
Other
capital
costs
2
($M)
Total
($M)
Annual
O&M
($M)
Annual
res.
maint
4
($M)
A7Q10
0.5
Total
($M)
Total
cost
3
($M)
185 260 0.3 8.6 837 616 171
Annual
Pumping
(Power)
($M)
7.8
Capital Cost
Capital Cost
Costs
Stakeholder
Requires
legislation
Contentious
Water withdrawal
Drinking water
Safe dams
404
Yes (IBT)
COE permit for reservoir, potential IBT, interstate
basin, EPD approval of instream flow
Stakeholder
sensitivity
New Reservoir NW of Forsyth
Instream flow
30% AAF
A7Q10
85
90
2-4
2-4
6-8
6-8
510
500
Overall
1
8-12
8-12
Timing (years)
Timing (years)
Yield
Instream
flow
Pump &
pipe
($M)
Water
treatment
($M)
Other
capital
costs
2
($M)
Total
($M)
Annual
O&M
($M)
Annual
res.
maint
4
($M)
30% AAF
A7Q10
0.5
Total
($M)
Total
cost
3
($M)
202 294 0.3 6.1 815 657 161
Annual
Pumping
(Power)
($M)
5.3
Capital Cost
Capital Cost
Costs
Stakeholder
sensitivity
Reasons Permits required
Requires
legislation
Contentious
Water withdrawal
Drinking water
Safe dams
404
No
COE permit for new reservoir, interstate stream,
EPD approval of instream flow
Stakeholder
sensitivity
New Reservoir E of Gwinnett
Instream flow
30% AAF
A7Q10
50
50
2-4
2-4
6-8
6-8
1,275
1,175
Overall
1
8-12
8-12
Timing (years)
Timing (years)
Yield
Instream
flow
Pump &
pipe
($M)
Water
treatment
($M)
Other
capital
costs
2
($M)
Total
($M)
Annual
O&M
($M)
Annual
res.
maint
4
($M)
30% AAF
A7Q10
0.5
Total
($M)
Total
cost
3
($M)
122 343 0.3 7.9 1,170 962 497
Annual
Pumping
(Power)
($M)
7.1
Capital Cost
Capital Cost
Costs
Stakeholder
Requires
legislation
Contentious
Water withdrawal
Drinking water
Safe dams
404
Yes (IBT)
Potential IBT, potential interstate stream, long
distance movement of water, COE permit for new
reservoir, EPD approval of instream flow
Stakeholder
sensitivity
Quarry options
Reservoirs: convert quarries
Size of quarry Yield (MGD) Cost ($/MG) Pre-const Const
Small (~3 BG)
Large (~15 BG)
5 (per quarry)
35
2-4
2-4
6-8
6-8
1,000
600 - 1,200
Overall
1
8-12
8-12
Timing (years)
Timing (years)
Yield
Size of
quarry
Pump &
pipe
($M)
Water
treatment
($M)
Other
capital
costs
2
($M)
Total
($M)
Annual
O&M
($M)
Annual
res.
maint
4
($M)
Small
Large
0.5
0.5
Total
($M)
Total
cost
3
($M)
23
95
34
77 577
0.1
0.2
1.7
4.3
140
360 - 860
95
250 750
37
78
Annual
Pumping
(Power)
($M)
1.1
3.6
Capital Cost
Capital Cost
Costs
Stakeholder
Requires
legislation
Some minor
sensitivities
Water withdrawal
Drinking water
No
Potential long distance movement of water,
highly uncertain acquisition costs of active
quarries
Stakeholder
sensitivity
Three small, inactive quarries within Metro area could
provide 5-25 MGD yield at cost of $1,000-1,500/ MG
Ben Hill
Clayton County
Forest Park
Red Oak
Norcross
Loganville
Adairsville
Fairmount
Rome (x2)
Critical shortfall county
MNGWPD
2
counties
Inactive ("abandoned") quarries
Active quarries
Filtering for inactive status + proximity to critical
shortfall area suggests 3 potential options
Filtering for inactive status + proximity to critical
shortfall area suggests 3 potential options
3
2 8 MGD
Inactive quarry in potentially feasible
proximity of critical shortfall area
Inactive
Borders critical
shortfall county
Quarries
Estimated yield per quarry
~5 25 MGD
Total small quarry
potential
Large, active quarry
considered as an option
1. In development for water storage use by City of Atlanta 2. Metropolitan North Georgia Water Planning District
Source: EPD - Metropolitan Atlanta abandoned quarries (greater than 50 acres); City of Atlanta DWM - Atlanta Area Quarry Inventory
Overview of key options: Capture
Capture
Groundwater and ASR
Desalination
Total of 9 specific groundwater options evaluated
Topic: Aquifer Storage and Recovery (ASR) / Groundwater (GW)
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Lawrenceville GW
1
Lawrenceville ASR
Gainesville GW
Non-potable GW use
ASR NW of Metro
Bartow GW
South Fulton GW
Spalding Co GW
South GA GW supply
GW/ASR
Illustrative- exact locations TBD
II. Capture
II. Capture GW/ASR
ASR/Groundwater option summary
Option Yield (MGD)
Cost
($/MG) Timing (years)
Lawrenceville groundwater 6
Gainesville groundwater 5 375 3
Spalding county groundwater 6 325 3
Bartow groundwater 7 345 4
Palmetto groundwater 2 375 4
Groundwater for non-potable use in Metro area 15 155 3
ASR northwest of Metro area 20 1,840 4-6
South GA groundwater 200 1,600 8-10
ASR to augment Lawrenceville groundwater 4 900 3-5
3 300
Ground-
water
ASR
II. Capture GW/ASR
ASR/Groundwater: context
Ground Water System
Ground Water System
Aquifer Storage and Recovery
Aquifer Storage and Recovery
What is an aquifer?
A geological formation containing water which
supplies wells and springs.
What is groundwater?
Water contained within an aquifer
How is groundwater used?
Over 50% of the US population uses ground
water as their primary water source
Many cities use ground water as primary
supply or to augment other supply sources
Is groundwater used in Georgia?
Groundwater serves ~20% of all GA water use
Largest uses are irrigation, public supply
(drinking, household use, etc), and industrial
Is groundwater used in Metro North Georgia?
Groundwater <1% of Metro public supply use
Regional geology not conducive to large yield,
but does provide some yield in localized areas
Source: USGS, Etowah Water Bank fact sheet, Metro Water Plan (2009)
What is ASR?
A system designed to inject surplus water into
an aquifer for extraction at a later time
Can be thought of as an underground reservoir
without evaporative losses and with minimal
environmental impacts
How is ASR used?
When water is available (periods of high flow
or off-peak demand), excess water is injected
into the aquifer
During peak demand periods, water is
recovered to augment supply
Note: water would be treated both before
injection and after recovery in Georgia
There are currently ~95 ASR well fields in
operation in 20 US states
Etowah Water Bank, currently in development
in Rome, GA, is an example of ASR
Major aquifers in Georgia
Geologic formations in south GA generally contain more abundant groundwater
Appalachian
Plateau
Valley and ridge
Blue Ridge
Piedmont
Coastal plain
Dougherty
plain
Savannah
Atlanta
Macon
Augusta
Columbus
F
a
l
l

l
i
n
e
P
a
l
e
o
z
o
i
c

r
o
c
k

P
a
l
e
o
z
o
i
c

r
o
c
k

a
q
u
i
f
e
r
s
a
q
u
i
f
e
r
s
C
r
y
s
t
a
l
l
i
n
e

r
o
c
k

C
r
y
s
t
a
l
l
i
n
e

r
o
c
k

a
q
u
i
f
e
r
s
a
q
u
i
f
e
r
s
C
r
e
t
a
c
e
o
u
s
a
q
u
if
e
r

s
y
s
t
e
m
C
layto
n
C
laib
o
rn
e
F
lo
r
id
a
n
a
q
u
if
e
r
s
y
s
t
e
m
U
p
p
e
r
&
lo
w
e
r
B
r
u
n
s
w
ic
k
15 county
MNGWPD
1
Coastal plain aquifers
Floridan
Floridan, Claiborne, Clayton, Cretaceous
Floridan, Cretaceous
Claiborne, Clayton, Cretaceous
Cretaceous
Piedmont and Blue Ridge aquifers
Crystalline rock
Valley and Ridge and Appalachian Plateau
Paleozoic rock
Generally little
groundwater
present
More
groundwater
present
II. Capture GW/ASR
1. Metropolitan North Georgia Water Planning District
Description of options in consideration
Topic: Aquifer Storage and Recovery (ASR) / Groundwater (I)
Lawrenceville
EPD permitting; many wells in
industrial or highly developed
areas; minor volatile organic
compounds (VOC's) locally present
in groundwater
EPD permitting; by nature, wells in
marbles very turbid; may require
additional treatment; potential for
land subsidence if over pumped
EPD permitting; many existing
wells and new well sites are in
industrial areas, pumping during
summer of 2000 showed low levels
of VOC's
Bartow County
New groundwater supply
system in Bartow county,
provide additional water to
Bartow, Cobb, Paulding
counties
Geology of the Valley and
Ridge had provided extremely
high yielding wells, ranging up
to 3,000 gpm (4.3 MGD); new
wells for Emerson are
promising; within 15 county
Metro region
EPD permitting; potential for land
subsidence if not properly
managed; could require extensive
development to remove turbidity
from the system
~4
South Fulton
(Palmetto)
system in South Fulton
(Palmetto), reduce upper
Chattahoochee withdrawals
Many high yielding wells (80-
400 gpm) have been drilled for
industrial uses; none of the
wells have been used or tested
for drinking water
EPD permitting; retrofitting wells to
drinking water standards; existing
wells are privately owned
~4
Suwanee to
Gainesville
corridor
Timing
(years)
Spalding
County, near
Griffin
Hydrogeologic investigations
completed, 6 existing wells
ready for permitting; 6 new well
sites available (70-350 gallons
per minute (gpm))
system in Suwanee to
Gainesville Corridor (Hall
County)
Area contains unique geologic
environment that locally
contains marbles; generally
highly solutioned and provide
very high yields (200-400 gpm);
some existing wells produce up
to 1 MGD; option plans for 12
wells, 5 MGD total
~3
system in Spalding county,
reduce upper Chattahoochee
withdrawals
Unique geologic environment
near Griffin would allow for very
productive well fields (100-600
gpm); existing water supply and
finished water lines in area
system in Lawrenceville
(Gwinnett)
~3
~3
G
r
o
u
n
d
w
a
t
e
r
1
2
3
4
5
II. Capture GW/ASR
Description of options in consideration
Topic: Aquifer Storage and Recovery (ASR) / Groundwater (II)
Large, south
GA supply
system
Public perception (Atlanta taking
water), possible basin transfer
issues.
Resistance to invest in individual
well system. Irrigation use is
seasonal, so demand in summer
is reduced.
Public perception (Atlanta taking
water), permitting; requires
feasibility testing in NW Georgia;
ultimately yield is based on excess
water supply available to recharge
ASR well field
ASR in
Lawrenceville
area
Install ASR system in
Lawrenceville to provide
additional yield directly to
Gwinnett
Use ASR to supplement recharge
in the Lawrenceville system; store
off-peak treated water; provide
water to Gwinnett County
Permitting due to well head
protection issues (physical
security of wells against
tampering); public perception of
contamination issues (VOC's)
3-5
Non-potable
groundwater
supply
Timing
(years)
ASR northwest
of Metro area
High yield aquifers in SW GA;
well field development will
financially benefit rural GA
Use localized groundwater
systems for non-potable uses
in Gwinnett, Hall, Forsyth
such as irrigation, cooling
facilities, industrial process
water
Replace use of treated water with
groundwater for non-potable
applications; process has been
operating for decades, with great
success, by those unable to
receive adequate service from
government-mandated central
water suppliers
~3
Install ASR system northwest
of Metro area; provide
additional yield directly to
Metro area counties (Cobb,
Bartow, Paulding), pump
water to existing WTP's
Develop ASR well field in Floyd
and/or Bartow Counties; store off-
peak treated water; reduces
evaporative loss from reservoirs;
meet peak demand requirements
Develop large (~200 MGD)
groundwater supply system in
south GA, create new water
authority to manage supply,
Metro area buy water
4-6
8-10
G
r
o
u
n
d
w
a
t
e
r
A
S
R
6
7
8
9
II. Capture GW/ASR
II. Capture GW/ASR
Detailed cost estimates for options
Team: Aquifer Storage and Recovery (ASR) / groundwater
Option
Pump &
pipe
($M)
Water
treatment
($M)
Other
capital
costs ($M)
Total
($M)
Annual
O&M
($M)
Other
annual
costs
($M)
0.3 0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
37
0
ASR northwest of Metro
area
350 n/a
1
100 450 2.9 5.5 0 8.5 670
0
0.3
0.3
0.5
0.3
10
n/a
Total
($M)
Total
cost
2
($M)
n/a
1
0.3
0.4
0.5
1.0
0.4
102
8
15
1.1
0.9
1.1
Bartow groundwater
9.5 11.0 0.5 0.7 1.3 45
Palmetto groundwater
2.6 3.2 0.2 0.2 0.4 15
South GA groundwater
2,535 2,647 50 37 124 5,840
Groundwater for non-
potable use in Metro area
n/a 8 1 0 1 35
ASR to augment
Lawrenceville
groundwater
3.9 19 0.7 1.1
4.5
1.8
0.6
65
0.5
35
35
0.6
10.2
7.2 35
3.9
9.5
6.3
Annual
Pumping
(Power)
($M)
Lawrenceville
groundwater
0.5
0.4
0.5
Gainesville groundwater
Spalding county
groundwater
Capital Cost
Capital Cost
G
r
o
u
n
d
-
w
a
t
e
r
A
S
R
1. Option would use available capacity at existing WTP's 2. Indicates total cost in 2010$ over the life of the project, discounted at 3%
II. Capture GW/ASR
Lawrenceville groundwater
Pump &
pipe
($M)
Water
treatment
($M)
Other
capital
costs ($M)
Total
($M)
Annual
WTP cost
($M)
Annual
O&M
($M)
0.3
Total
($M)
Total
cost
1
($M)
0.1 0.3 1.1 4.5 35 0.6 3.9
Annual
Pumping
(Power)
($M)
0.5
Capital Cost
Capital Cost
Yield (MGD) Cost ($/MG) Pre-const Const
~6 2 1 300
Overall
3
Timing (years)
Timing (years)
Yield
Costs
Stakeholder
Requires
legislation
Some minor
sensitivities
Water withdrawal
Drinking water
No
Many wells in industrial or highly developed
areas, minor Volatile Organic Compounds locally
present in ground water
Stakeholder
sensitivity
1. Indicates total cost in 2010$ over the life of the project, discounted at 3%
II. Capture GW/ASR
Gainesville groundwater
Pump &
pipe
($M)
Water
treatment
($M)
Other
capital
costs ($M)
Total
($M)
Annual
WTP cost
($M)
Annual
O&M
($M)
0.3
Total
($M)
Total
cost
1
($M)
0.1 0.4 0.9 10.2 35 0.5 9.5
Annual
Pumping
(Power)
($M)
0.4
Capital Cost
Capital Cost
~5 2 1 375
Overall
3
Timing (years)
Timing (years)
Yield
Costs
Stakeholder
Requires
legislation
Some minor
sensitivities
Water withdrawal
Drinking water
No
Potential development of land subsidence if over
pumped
Stakeholder
sensitivity
II. Capture GW/ASR
Spalding County groundwater
Pump &
pipe
($M)
Water
treatment
($M)
Other
capital
costs ($M)
Total
($M)
Annual
WTP cost
($M)
Annual
O&M
($M)
0.3
Total
($M)
Total
cost
1
($M)
0.1 0.5 1.1 7.2 35 0.6 6.3
Annual
Pumping
(Power)
($M)
0.5
Capital Cost
Capital Cost
~6 2 1 325
Overall
3
Timing (years)
Timing (years)
Yield
Costs
Stakeholder
Requires
legislation
Some minor
sensitivities
Water withdrawal
Drinking water No
Potential low level Volatile Organic Compounds
present in ground water
Stakeholder
sensitivity
II. Capture GW/ASR
Bartow groundwater
Pump &
pipe
($M)
Water
treatment
($M)
Other
capital
costs ($M)
Total
($M)
Annual
WTP cost
($M)
Annual
O&M
($M)
0.5
Total
($M)
Total
cost
1
($M)
0.1 1.0 1.3 11.0 45 0.7 9.5
Annual
Pumping
(Power)
($M)
0.5
Capital Cost
Capital Cost
~7 3 1 345
Overall
4
Timing (years)
Timing (years)
Yield
Costs
Stakeholder
Requires
legislation
Some significant
sensitivities; some
chance of delayed
implementation
Water withdrawal
Drinking water No
Potential for development of land subsidence if
not properly managed
Stakeholder
sensitivity
II. Capture GW/ASR
Palmetto groundwater
Pump &
pipe
($M)
Water
treatment
($M)
Other
capital
costs ($M)
Total
($M)
Annual
WTP cost
($M)
Annual
O&M
($M)
0.3
Total
($M)
Total
cost
1
($M)
0.1 0.4 0.4 3.2 15 0.2 2.6
Annual
Pumping
(Power)
($M)
0.2
Capital Cost
Capital Cost
~2 3 1 375
Overall
4
Timing (years)
Timing (years)
Yield
Costs
Stakeholder
Requires
legislation
Some minor
sensitivities
Water withdrawal
Drinking water No
Requires retrofitting wells to drinking water
standards, existing wells privately owned
Stakeholder
sensitivity
II. Capture GW/ASR
South GA groundwater
Pump &
pipe
($M)
Water
treatment
($M)
Other
capital
costs ($M)
Total
($M)
Annual
WTP cost
($M)
Annual
O&M
($M)
10
Total
($M)
Total
cost
1
($M)
37 102 124 2,647 5,840 37 2,535
Annual
Pumping
(Power)
($M)
50
Capital Cost
Capital Cost
~200 2-3 3-10 1,600
Overall
5-13
Timing (years)
Timing (years)
Yield
Costs
Stakeholder
Requires
legislation
Contentious
Water withdrawal
Drinking water Yes (IBT)
Potential opposition from existing ground water
users (agriculture, industry, municipalities),
interbasin transfer, sustainable yields subject to
results of ongoing EPD modeling efforts
Stakeholder
sensitivity
II. Capture GW/ASR
Groundwater for non-potable use
~15 2 1 155
Overall
3
Timing (years)
Timing (years)
Yield
Pump &
pipe
($M)
Water
treatment
($M)
Other
capital
costs ($M)
Total
($M)
Annual
WTP cost
($M)
Annual
O&M
($M)
0
Total
($M)
Total
cost
1
($M)
n/a 8 0 1 35 8 n/a
Annual
Pumping
(Power)
($M)
1
Capital Cost
Capital Cost
Costs
Stakeholder
Requires
legislation
No significant
sensitivities noted
Water withdrawal No
Stakeholder
sensitivity
II. Capture GW/ASR
ASR NW of Metro area
~20 1-2 2-4 1,840
Overall
4-6
Timing (years)
Timing (years)
Yield
Pump &
pipe
($M)
Water
treatment
($M)
Other
capital
costs ($M)
Total
($M)
Annual
WTP cost
($M)
Annual
O&M
($M)
0
Total
($M)
Total
cost
1
($M)
n/a
2
100 5.5 8.5 670 450 350
Annual
Pumping
(Power)
($M)
2.9
Capital Cost
Capital Cost
Costs
Stakeholder
Requires
legislation
Some significant
sensitivities
Water withdrawal
Drinking water No
Concerns over "contaminating" ground water
sources with surface water
Stakeholder
sensitivity
1. Indicates total cost in 2010$ over the life of the project, discounted at 3% 2. Utilize existing WTP capacity
II. Capture GW/ASR
ASR to augment Lawrenceville groundwater
~4 1 2-4 900
Overall
3-5
Timing (years)
Timing (years)
Yield
Pump &
pipe
($M)
Water
treatment
($M)
Other
capital
costs ($M)
Total
($M)
Annual
WTP cost
($M)
Annual
O&M
($M)
0
Total
($M)
Total
cost
1
($M)
n/a
2
15 1.1 1.8 65 19 3.9
Annual
Pumping
(Power)
($M)
0.7
Capital Cost
Capital Cost
Costs
Stakeholder
Requires
legislation
Some significant
sensitivities
Water withdrawal
Drinking water No
Concerns over "contaminating" ground water
sources with surface water
Stakeholder
sensitivity
1. Indicates total cost in 2010$ over the life of the project, discounted at 3% 2. Utilize existing WTP capacity
Capture
Capture
Groundwater and ASR
Desalination
II. Capture Desalination
Desalination option expensive at ~$6,000/MGvd
~200 MGD desal
plant
Long distance movement of water,
significant transport cost, relatively
high cost, environmental concerns
with disposal of waste product (highly
concentrated brine)
Timing
(years)
Tap large source of potential
water supply, relieve
dependence on river and
creek surface water
Build large desalination plant
near Savannah, pump water to
nearest Metro area water
supply connection
8-10
Yield
(MGD)
Cost
($/MG)
200 ~6,000
~250+ miles to
pump/ pipe water
~200 MGD
desalination plant
II. Capture Desalination
Savannah desalination plant
~200 2-3 6-8 6,000
Overall
8-10
Timing (years)
Timing (years)
Yield
Pump &
pipe
($M)
Water
treatment
($M)
Other
capital
costs ($M)
Total
($M)
Annual
WTP cost
($M)
Annual
O&M
($M)
n/a
Total
($M)
Total
cost
1
($M)
4,600 30 275 305 21,600 13,730 9,100
Annual
Pumping
(Power)
($M)
31
Capital Cost
Capital Cost
Costs
Stakeholder
Requires
legislation
Contentious
Water withdrawal
Drinking water Yes (IBT)
Potentially highly sensitive: costly option,
possible environmental concerns of disposing
highly concentrated saline waste product
Stakeholder
sensitivity
Capture
Capture
Groundwater and ASR
Desalination
II. Capture
Water quality/treatment options considered
Topic: Water quality/treatment
Timing
(years)
Septic to
sewer
conversion
Conversion of septic
systems to sewer in critical
Metro North counties
(Gwinnett, Forsyth and Hall)
Reduction in consumptive
water use i.e. quicker return of
wastewater to treatment plants
and ultimately back into the
system
High cost of implementation 810
II. Capture
Cost, yield and timing estimates for options
Topic: Water quality/treatment
Option
Yield
(MGD) $/MG Pre-const. Const. Total
1 ~10
~10
~10
1
5
1
8 10
8 10
8 - 10
Conversion of septic systems to sewer in Forsyth county
3 6,600
1
Conversion of septic systems to sewer in Hall county
4 6,700
1
6,600
1
Conversion of septic systems to sewer in Gwinnett county
Timing (yrs)
Timing (yrs)
1. Does not include wastewater treatment cost
II. Capture
Septic to sewer conversion options
Topic: water quality/treatment
County
Yield
(MGD)
Cost
($/MG) Pre-construction Construction
Gwinnett
Forsyth
Hall
5
3
4
1
1
1
8 10
8 10
8 10
6,600
6,600
6,700
Overall
~10
~10
~10
Timing (years)
Timing (years)
Yield
Stakeholder
sensitivity Reasons
Permits
required
Requires
legislation
Some
significant
sensitivity
No No
Economics to implement the option are
not justified unless population density is
significant
Costs
Stakeholder
sensitivity
Estimates have been rounded to the nearest integer, numbers may not add up due to rounding errors
County
Pump & Pipe
Infrastructure
($M)
Water
treatment
($M)
Total
($M)
Annual
O&M
($M)
Total
cost
1
($M)
Gwinnett
Forsyth
Hall
0
0
0
600
420
510
2.4
1.7
2.9
480
336
408
480
336
408
Capital Cost
Capital Cost
Control
Control: water transfers
III. Control
Water transfer options considered (I)
Timing
(years)
Lake Burton
transfer
Transfer water from Lake
Burton in the Savannah
basin to the main Gwinnett
County water treatment plant
on Lake Lanier for
distribution into the Gwinnett
County system
Potential source of water supply
to Metro North counties
Mountainous watershed produces
high unit runoff
Relatively low environmental
impacts to exisitng water body
Access to relatively high quality
water of Lake Burton
Requires legislative approval
to allow transfer of water
from outside Metro district
Significant increase to flow
volumes in Raper Creek
Lake drawdown may
potentially affect high
value areas
FERC licensing required for
use of GA Power reservoir
810
Lake Hartwell
transfer
Transfer water from Lake
Hartwell in the Savannah
basin to the main Gwinnett
County water treatment plant
on Lake Lanier for
distribution into the Gwinnett
County system
Potential source of water supply
to Metro North counties
Relatively low environmental
impacts to existing water body
Access to relatively high quality
water of Lake Hartwell
Requires congressional
authorization for withdrawing
water for the purpose of
water supply
Potential opposition by
South Carolina &
downstream communities
Requires permit to withdraw
water
810
III. Control
Water transfer options considered (II)
Timing
(years)
Tennessee
basin transfer
Transfer water from the
Tennessee basin to the
Metro Water district as a
long term supply source
Potential alternate water supply
to the entire Metro district
Sustainable, reliable supply from
closest, largest fresh water
source available
Legal access must
be confirmed
Significant transport
distance, capital costs
810
West Point
Lake transfer
Transfer water from West
Point Lake to a new regional
water treatment plant
located near Union City,
Fulton County. Gwinnett
could obtain finished water
from DeKalb and Fulton
Counties' connections
Potential source of water
supply to multiple counties
in Metro district
Use of water from an existing
lake would create fewer
environmental impacts and would
have high reliability
Requires congressional
authorization for withdrawing
water for the purpose of
water supply
Long distance pumping
'uphill' to Atlanta area
810
III. Control
Control options yield and cost estimate detail
Option Brief Description
Yield
(MGD) $/MG
Pre-
const. Const.
Lake Burton transfer
Lake Hartwell transfer
Tennessee basin
transfer
West Point Lake
transfer
Transfer water from Lake Burton in the Savannah basin
the main Gwinnett County WTP on Lake Lanier for
distribution into the Gwinnett County system
50 415 3 5 5 8 10
Transfer water from the Tennessee basin to the Metro
Water district as a long term supply source
250 890 4 5 4 5 8 - 10
Transfer water from Lake Hartwell in the Savannah basin
the main Gwinnett County WTP on Lake Lanier for
distribution into the Gwinnett County system
100 680 3 5 5 8 10
3 5 5 Transfers from West Point Lake to a new regional WTP
located near Union City, Fulton County; Gwinnett obtains
finished water from DeKalb and Fulton Counties'
connections
1
100 1,110 8 10
Total
Timing (yrs)
Timing (yrs)
1. Interconnection costs not included; WTP Water Treatment Plant
III. Control
Detailed cost estimates for transfer options
Option
Transport
Infrastructure
1
($M)
Water
treatment
($M)
Total
($M)
Annual
O&M
($M)
Total
($M)
Total cost
2
($M)
Lake Burton transfer 362 0 362 0.6 0.1 0.7 380
Tennessee basin transfer 1,701 492 2,193 29 69 98 4,075
0
375
Lake Hartwell transfer 1108 1,108 5 0.2 5 1,246
West Point Lake transfer 828 1,203 4 28 32 2,027
Annual
Pumping
(Power)
($M)
Capital Cost
Capital Cost
Note: 1. Includes pump and pipe, intake and storage costs associated with transporting water 2. Indicates total cost in 2010$ over the life of the project, discounted at 3%
Estimates have been rounded to the nearest integer, numbers may not add up due to rounding errors
III. Control
Topic: Integrated supply management
Scenario
Yield
(MGD)
Cost
No return flow
With return flow
50
50
3 5
3 5
5
5
416
729
Overall
8 10
8 10
Timing (years)
Timing (years)
Yield
Costs
Stakeholder
sensitivity Reasons Key Permits required
Requires
legislation
Highly
contentious
EIS (FERC)
404 Individual (USACE)
Water withdrawal (EPD)
NPDES Discharge (EPD)
NPDES Stormwater (EPD)
Yes, to allow
transfer from
outside the
Metro
district
Risk of litigation from South
Carolina and other
downstream communities,
Interbasin transfer required,
Potential for significant
environmental impact
Stakeholder
sensitivity
1. Includes pump and pipe, intake and storage costs associated with transporting water 2. Indicates total cost in 2010$ over the life of the project, discounted at 3%
Estimates have been rounded to the nearest integer, numbers may not add up due to rounding errors; Source: Technical Advisor Panel
Scenario
Transport
Infrastructure
1
($M)
Water
treatment
($M)
Total
($M)
Annual
O&M
($M)
Total
($M)
Total
cost
2
($M)
No return flow
With return flow
0
0
0.7
1.5
380
670
0.1
0.5
362
626
362
626
Annual
Pumping
Power
($M)
0.6
1
Capital Cost
Capital Cost
Scenario
Yield
(MGD)
Cost
No return flow
With return flow
100
100
3 5
3 5
5
5
683
1,073
Overall
8 10
8 10
Timing (years)
Timing (years)
Yield
Costs
Stakeholder
sensitivity
Scenario
Transport
Infrastructure
1
($M)
Water
treatment
($M)
Total
($M)
Annual
O&M
($M)
Total
($M)
Total
cost
2
($M)
No return flow
With return flow
0
0
5.4
9
1,250
1,960
0.2
0.5
1,110
1,730
1,110
1,730
Annual
Pumping
Power
($M)
5.2
8.5
Capital Cost
Capital Cost
III. Control
Stakeholder
Requires
legislation
Highly
contentious
EIS (USACE)
Yes, to allow
transfer from
outside the
Metro
district
Risk of litigation from South
Carolina and other
downstream communities,
Interbasin transfer required,
Potential for significant
environmental impact
Estimates have been rounded to the nearest integer, numbers may not add up due to rounding errors; Source: Technical Advisor Panel
III. Control
Tennessee basin transfer
Yield
Transport
Infrastructure
1
($M)
Water
treatment
($M)
Total
($M)
Annual
O&M
($M)
Total
($M)
Total cost
2
($M)
492 69 98 4,075 2193 1,701
Annual
Pumping
Power ($M)
29
Capital Cost
Capital Cost
Yield (MGD) Cost ($/MG) Pre-construction Construction
250 3 - 5 5 893
Overall
8 - 10
Timing (years)
Timing (years)
Costs
Stakeholder
Requires
legislation
Highly
contentious
EIS (TVA)
Yes, to allow
transfer from
outside the
Metro
district
Legal access to water needs
to be confirmed, Interbasin
transfer required
Stakeholder
sensitivity
Estimates have been rounded to the nearest integer, numbers may not add up due to rounding errors; Costs do not account for return of water to originating basin
III. Control
West Point Lake transfer
Yield
Transport
Infrastructure
1
($M)
Water
treatment
($M)
Total
($M)
Annual
O&M
($M)
Total
($M)
Total cost
2
($M)
375 28 32 2,027 1,203 828
Annual
Pumping
Power ($M)
4.5
Capital Cost
Capital Cost
Yield (MGD) Cost ($/MG) Pre-construction Construction
100 3 - 5 5 1,111
Overall
8 - 10
Timing (years)
Timing (years)
Costs
Stakeholder
Requires
legislation
Highly
contentious
EIS (USACE)
No- would
be intra
basin
transfer
Interbasin transfer may be
required depending on final
destination, Potential for
significant environmental
impact
Stakeholder
sensitivity
1. Includes Includes pump and pipe, intake and storage costs associated with transporting water 2. Indicates total cost in 2010$ over the life of the project, discounted at 3%
Estimates have been rounded to the nearest integer, numbers may not add up due to rounding errors; Costs do not account for return of water to originating basin
Unit costs for transfers sensitive to return flow policy
Unit costs increase over 50% with mandated return flow requirement to originating basin
683
416
1,073
729
+75%
Without return flow requirement
With return flow requirement
+57%
Transfer option
Transfer option
Unit cost of yield ($/MG)
Unit cost of yield ($/MG)
III. Control
Source: Technical Advisor Panel estimates
Large scale interbasin transfers not economically feasible
as temporary solutions
Less-infrastructure intensive transfers
potentially viable on temporary basis
1,430
0
200
400
600
800
1,000
1,200
1,400
1,600
~820
~410
~730
Long term transfer
without return flow
(50 yr life)
Long term transfer
with return flow
(50 yr life)
Temporary transfer
without return flow
(25 yr life)
Temporary transfer
with return flow
(25 yr life)
+75% +100% +250%
Wtd. avg. unit cost
of cost optimal
2020 portfolio
~$410/MG
Implementation
Scenario
Unit cost of
water supplied
($/MG)
Analysis of Lake Burton transfer under different implementation scenarios
1
Analysis of Lake Burton transfer under different implementation scenarios
1
1. Lake Burton transfer option chosen as an illustrative example since it is the only interbasin transfer that is present in the cost optimal 2020 portfolio of options
Note: Return flow scenarios assume that the receiving basin returns an equal volume of treated wastewater (as was originally transferred) back to the originating basin, thus requiring
supporting infrastructure to enable return flows
Source: Technical Advisor Panel Analysis
III. Control
Proposed transfer from Lake Burton to Gwinnett WTP
90 95% of option's cost
involved is associated
with bypassing Lake
Lanier
Cost efficiency ($/MG) on
use of Lake Lanier could
be ~50; currently ~420
90 95% of option's cost
involved is associated
with bypassing Lake
Lanier
Cost efficiency ($/MG) on
use of Lake Lanier could
be ~50; currently ~420
Transfer
location
Supply line
circumvents
Lanier to comply
with ruling
Illustration of option: Transfer from Lake Hartwell to
Gwinnett WTP
III. Control
Illustration of option: Transfer from West Point Lake to
Fulton county
III. Control
Illustration of option: Return of water to originating basin
for Lake Hartwell transfer under mandated return flow req.
III. Control
Illustration of option: Return of water to originating basin
for Lake Burton transfer under mandated return flow req.
III. Control
Existing interbasin transfers in Georgia
O
c
m
u
l
g
e
e
Flint
Tallapoosa
C
o
o
s
a
O
c
o
n
e
e
1
.
9
5
2
.
6
C
h
a
t
t
a
h
o
o
c
h
e
e
5
.
4
5
.
4
3.8
1
7
.
4
9
.
3
0
.
4
1
.
4
4
.
0
0
.
9
0
.
1
0
.
2
S
a
v
a
n
n
a
h
O
g
e
e
c
h
e
e
Tennessee
2
.
7
Transfer (AAD-MGD)
III. Control
Note: An interbasin transfer of water is any surface water which is withdrawn from one major river basin and discharged, sold to, or otherwise utilized in another major river basin
Source: Environmental Protection Division (EPD) Data for 2008
III. Control
Major (> 1 AAD-MGD) interbasin water transfers in Georgia
Water system
transferring Basin transfer
Net Transfer
(AAD-MGD)
Chattahoochee to
Ocmulgee
37.2
15.3
5.0
City of Atlanta Chattahoochee to Flint 1.6 Union City, Fayette Co., Clayton Co. Fulton, Fayette, Clayton
Carroll CoAuth. Chattahoochee to
Tallapoosa
3.6 Haralson Co. WSA, Cities of Temple, Mt. Zion
and Villa Rica
Carroll, Haralson
Cobb CoAuth. Coosa to Chattahoochee 16.6 SE. Cobb Co., Douglas Co., Paulding Co.,
Lockheed
Cobb, Douglas, Paulding
Clayton County Flint to Ocmulgee 5.7 Clayton Co. Clayton
City of Griffin Flint to Ocmulgee 3.6 E. Spalding Co. Spalding
Forsyth County Chattahoochee to Coosa 3.3 NW Forsyth Co., Etowah Water & Sewer
Authority
Forsyth, Dawson
City of Cumming Chattahoochee to Coosa 1.3 NW Forsyth Co. Forsyth
Newnan Water
System
Flint to Chattahoochee 4.0 Coweta Co., City of Newnan Coweta
Eastside Utilities Tennessee to Coosa 2.3 Dalton Utilities Whitfield
Chattahoochee to
Ocmulgee
Chattahoochee to Oconee
Water system receiving transfer
County receiving
transfer
DeKalb County S. DeKalb
Gwinnett Co., Rockdale Co., Walton Co., City of
Loganville
E. Hall County
DeKalb, Rockdale, Henry
Gwinnett County Gwinnett, Rockdale,
Walton
City of Gainesville Hall
III. Control
Minor (< 1 AAD-MGD) interbasin water transfers in Georgia
Water system
transferring Basin transfer
Net
Transfer
(AAD-MGD)
Chattahoochee to Coosa 0.7
0.1
0.2
City of Social Circle Ocmulgee to Oconee 0.5 East Social Circle Walton
Etowah Water Auth. Coosa to Chattahoochee 0.8 East Dawson Co. Dawson
Douglas CoAuth. Chattahoochee to
Tallapoosa
0.1 City of Villa Rica Carroll
Heard Co.Auth. Chattahoochee to
Tallapoosa
0.1 City of Ephesus Heard
Henry Co.Auth. Ocmulgee to Flint 0.4 City of Hampton, Bear Creek LAS Henry
City of Union Point Savannah to Ogeechee 0.2 City of Union Point Greene
Dalton Utilities Coosa to Tennessee 0.9 West Whitfield Co. Whitfield
City of LaFayette Tennessee to Coosa 0.4 City of LaFayette Walker
Monroe Utility
Network
Ocmulgee to Oconee 0.9 City of Monroe, Walton Co. Walton
Gwinnett County Chattahoochee to Oconee 0.4 Walton Co., Cities of Auburn, Braselton and
Loganville
Barrow, Walton, Jackson
City of Atlanta Chattahoochee to Flint 0.1 Fayette County Fayette
DeKalb County Chattahoochee to
Ocmulgee
0.1 Henry Co. Water & Sewerage Authority Henry
Clayton-Rabun Co.
W&SA
Savannah to Tennessee 0.1 City of Clayton/North Loop Rabun
Chattahoochee to Coosa
Chattahoochee to Flint
Water system receiving transfer
County receiving
transfer
Atlanta-Fulton
County
N. Fulton Co.
West Lumpkin County
City of Greenville
Fulton
City of Dahlonega Lumpkin
City of LaGrange Meriwether
Feasibility considerations for option implementation
Number of considerations impact option feasibility
Description of criteria levels
Considerations Levels
Congressional authorization Required (eg, if given lake is not authorized for water supply use)
Not required
Legislative change Required (eg, Interbasin transfers into Metro District)
Not required
Permitting (incremental
requirements)
Not required (or completed)
Some additional permitting required; but some portions already
completed or not required (annotate requirements for given option)
Full Section 404 individual permitting required
Environmental Impact Study Required (by specific agency)
Not required
Right-of-way / Easements Required
Not required / already obtained
Qualifies for public funding
sources
Federal funds: State Revolving Funds Green Project Reserve
Federal funds: State Revolving Funds
Ga Fund / Ga Reservoir Fund
None (or no precedent for use of Ga Fund in this way)
Joint and severable liability
clause required
Required
Not required
Feasibility considerations for conserve options
Option
Congressional
Authorization
Required
Legislative
change
Required Permitting
EIS
Required
Right
of way
needed
GEFA
funding
sources
Joint
liability
clause
required
Indirect Potable
Reuse
No No Full permitting
needed
Likely, if
contested by
downstream
interests
Yes GA fund,
GA reservoir
and water
supply fund,
DWSRF
base program
Yes
I
n
d
i
r
e
c
t

P
o
t
a
b
l
e

R
e
u
s
e
Most criteria not applicable to efficiency programs; Some
options qualify for advantageous forms of funding
Source: Technical Advisor Panel, Georgia Environmental Facilities Authority (GEFA)
Feasibility considerations for capture options (I)
Option
Congressional
Authorization
Required
Legislative
change Required Permitting
EIS
Required
Right
of way
needed
GEFA funding
sources
Joint
liability
clause
required
Big Haynes Creek expansion No No Partial (EPD water
withdrawal)
Yes No Yes
Dog River expansion No No Full permitting
needed
Yes Yes Yes
Etowah River Dam 1expansion No No Full permitting
needed
Yes Yes No
Tussahaw Creek No No Partial (EPD water
withdrawal)
Yes No Yes
Newton County Bear Creek No No Full permitting
needed
Yes Yes Yes
Hard Labor Creek No No Partial (EPD water
withdrawal)
No
(complete)
Yes Yes
South Fulton Bear Creek No Yes - Storage
Delivery Strategy
(SDS)
Full permitting
needed
Yes Yes Yes
Glades No No Full permitting
needed
Yes Yes Yes
Richland Creek No No Full permitting
needed
Yes Yes Yes
Reservoir NW of Forsyth No Yes (IBT) Full permitting
needed
Yes Yes Yes
Reservoir E of Gwinnett No Yes (IBT) Full permitting
needed
Yes Yes Yes
Quarries No No Partial (EPD water
withdrawal)
Yes Yes N/A No
R
e
s
e
r
v
o
i
r

e
x
p
a
n
s
i
o
n
N
e
w

r
e
s
e
r
v
o
i
r
Q
u
a
r
r
i
e
s
GA fund,
GA reservoir and
water supply fund
Feasibility considerations for capture options (II)
Option
Congressional
Authorization
Required
Legislative change
Required Permitting
EIS
Required
Right
of way
needed
GEFA funding
sources
Joint
liability
clause
required
Lawrenceville GW
system
No No Partial (EPD
water withdrawal)
Yes Yes No
Suwanee/Gainesville
GW system
No No Partial (EPD
water withdrawal)
Yes Yes No
Spalding county GW
system
No No Partial (EPD
water withdrawal)
Yes Yes No
Bartow county GW
system
No No Partial (EPD
water withdrawal)
Yes Yes No
Palmetto GW system No No Partial (EPD
water withdrawal)
Yes Yes No
South GA GW system No Yes (IBT) Partial (EPD
water withdrawal)
Yes Yes Yes
GW for non-potable
use
No No Partial (EPD
water withdrawal)
Yes Yes No
Floyd/Bartow ASR No No Partial (EPD
water withdrawal)
Yes Yes Yes
Lawrenceville ASR No No Partial (EPD
water withdrawal)
Yes Yes No
Savannah
Desalination plant
No No Full permitting
needed
Yes Yes GA reservoir
and water
supply fund
Yes
G
r
o
u
n
d
w
a
t
e
r
A
S
R
D
e
s
a
l
GA fund,
GA reservoir and
water supply fund,
DWSRF base
program
No precedent;
requires GEFA
Board approval
Feasibility considerations for control options
Option
Congressional
Authorization
Required
Legislative change
Required Permitting
EIS
Required
Right of
way
Needed
GEFA
funding
sources
Joint
liability
clause
required
Lake Burton No Yes (IBT) Full permitting
needed
Yes Yes Yes
Lake Hartwell Yes Yes (IBT) Full permitting
needed
Yes Yes Yes
Tennessee Basin No Yes (IBT) Full permitting
needed
Yes Yes Yes
West Point Lake Yes Yes (IBT) Full permitting
needed
Yes Yes Yes
I
n
t
e
r
b
a
s
i
n

t
r
a
n
s
f
e
r
GA fund,
GA reservoir and
water supply fund
1
1. Transfer of finished water qualifies for funding; no precedent to fund infrastructure to return treated wastewater
Select public funding sources for option implementation
Fund
Fund
Nature of projects that qualify
Nature of projects that qualify
Agency
Agency
Georgia fund
GA reservoir and water supply fund
Drinking Water (DW) SRFBase program
DWSRFGreen project reserve
Clean Water (CW) SRFBase program
CWSRFGreen project reserve
General water infrastructure
Water supply infrastructure
Public-health drinking water projects
Set aside for specific types of projects
Sewer and non-point projects
Set aside for specific types of projects
Georgia
Environmental
Facilities Authority
(GEFA)
Community development block grant program
OneGeorgia authority equity fund
Appalachian regional commission area
development fund
To improve housing and economic development (water
and sewer) for low and moderate income communities
Water and sewer projects that create jobs in rural areas
Water and sewer
Georgia Dept. of
Community Affairs
(DCA)
Water and wastewater loans and grants
Emergency community water assistance grants
Very low-income housing repair loans and grants
(Section 504)
Water, sewer, storm sewer, and solid
waste projects
Water and sewer in rural communities in event of
natural disaster
Individual wells in rural areas
US Dept. of
Agriculture (USDA)
rural development
Public works and development facilities
grant program
1
Individual household well loan program
2
Household water well system grant
3
Water and sewer for economic development in
distressed areas
Individual wells
Individual wells for low-income homeowners
Other
Clean water Act Section 319(h) grants
Coastal incentive grant program
Non-point, water quality projects
Coastal and natural projects
Georgia Dept. of
Natural Resources
(DNR), Environmental
Protection Division
(EPD)
1. Economic Development Administration (EDA), Department of Commerce 2. Southeast Rural Community Assistance Project 3. The Foundation for Affordable Drinking Water
Source: Georgia Environmental Facilities Authority (GEFA)
Potentially ~$285M in GEFA funding available for option
implementation in FY 2011
Georgia fund
GA reservoir and water supply fund
Drinking Water (DW) SRFBase program
DWSRFGreen project reserve
Clean Water (CW) SRFBase program
CWSRFGreen project reserve
Current balance
1
($M)
Current balance
1
($M)
74.4
27.4
36.8
0
137.2
0
Expected FY 2011 funds
($M)
Expected FY 2011 funds
($M)
55.0
27.4
36.0
6.3
153.0
6.9
~285 ~275
1. Balance as of September 30, 2009; Does not reflect loans in process
Option qualification for GEFA funds based on designated
fund purpose
CWSRF
Green project
reserve
CWSRF
Green project
reserve
Fixture retrofits
Leak abatement
Sub-metering
Conservation pricing
Indirect potable reuse
Non-potable reuse
Conserve
Georgia fund
1. Depends on EPA guidance; might not fund equipment 2. Might not fund equipment 3. If part of a larger project 4. If clearly augments potable supply
5. No precedent; Requires GEFA Board approval 6. If addresses needed redundancy
Georgia fund
GA reservoir
and water
supply fund
GA reservoir
and water
supply fund
Drinking
Water (DW)
SRFBase
program
Drinking
Water (DW)
SRFBase
program
DWSRF
Green project
reserve
DWSRF
Green project
reserve
Clean Water
(CW)
SRFBase
program
Clean Water
(CW)
SRFBase
program
Reservoir expansions
New reservoirs
Groundwater
ASR
Desalination
Capture
Finished water transfer
Return flows of treated
wastewater
Control
(Note 1)
(Note 2)
(Note 3)
(Note 4)
(Note 5)
(Note 5)
(Note 5)
(Note 5) (Note 5)
(Note 6)
Option qualifies
Option may qualify
subject to conditions
Appendix IV
Option evaluation process and
Technical Assumptions
December 2009
1 144200-01 TF Appendix IV.ppt
Explanation of option analysis process
Staff and technical advisors defined set of relevant options
Referred to TF input, existing options from GA / Metro area and case studies of other areas
Individual sub-teams iteratively revised / augmented option set throughout process
Teams created key assumptions (locations, distances, etc) to enable cost estimation
Sub-teams generated initial cost / benefit estimates
Estimated incremental yield for each option (ie, yield not yet incorporated in Metro Plan)
Estimated approximate costs bottom-up (eg, pump horsepower required, transport distance, etc)
Capital and operating costs estimated over project lives, discounted back to 2010
Teams applied standard cost metrics across teams where possible, eg
Cost per mile for pipe infrastructure, Cost per horsepower required for pumping stations, Cost per
capacity for water treatment plants....(full list on following pages)
Full technical advisor team conducted "peer review" of all estimates
Sub-teams presented findings to full advisory panel, as well as to water professionals
Assumptions underlying costs, yields challenged and refined
Developed consensus that estimates are directionally correct + reasonably accurate given constraints
Result is yield, cost estimates that are comparable- though not precise, as actual design and
implementation analysis were not conducted
Summary of economic criteria used in analyses
Criterion
Criterion
Yield: MGD (AAD)
Cost-efficiency: $/MG
Capital required: $M
Definition, units
Definition, units
MGD saved or supplied, in
Avg Annual Day terms
2010 $ cost per million
gallons "saved"
Includes capital expense,
operating expense over
project lifetime, discounted to
2010 at 3% real rate
Total 2010 $ costs divided by
total MG yielded over project
$M of capital expense (in
2010$)
What this tells us
What this tells us
Options' contribution to
supply gap
Relative cost efficiency
of different types of
solutions
Normalized for timing
of costs, enabling
comparison of capital
intensive options with
low capital cost options
Degree of near-term
budget demands
Standard cost assumptions used by all teams
Capital expenses (I)
$33,314 x (HP ^ 0.68), where HP = pump horsepower
$375,000 x (Q ^ 0.7), where Q = flow rate (MGD)
Standard used
All costs in mid-2010 Dollars
ENR Construction Cost Index (CCI) in October
2009: 8,596.31
Assumed CCI for mid 2010: 8,770
Cost per lineal foot = (CCI/653) * D ^ 1.085
Built-in contingency factor of 1.5
Accounts for distance calculated "as the crow flies"
Includes "right of way" cost contingency
Pipeline
May include single or multiple pumping stations
Cost calibrated for mid-2010 dollars
Includes all associated costs (pumps, housing,
motors, design oversight, etc)
Based on South Central TX Regional Water Plan
construction cost data
Pump
stations
Built-in contingency factor of 1.5
Includes structure cost only
Pumps estimated separately
Cost has been calibrated for mid-2010 dollars
Intakes
Assumptions Category
15,050,000 2,851 96
13,020,000 2,466 84
11,020,000 2,086 72
9,040,000 1,712 60
7,100,000 1,344 48
6,140,000 1,163 42
5,190,000 983 36
4,260,000 807 30
3,340,000 633 24
464
299
245
Cost/lineal foot
2,450,000 18
1,580,000 12
1,290,000 10
Cost/mile Diameter (in)
Capital expenses (II)
Major refurbishment of pumping stations and Water
Treatment Plants required every 25 years at ~1/4
to 1/3 of original cost
30% of original capital expense in Year 25 Pump &
WTP refurb
Water treatment plant capital cost ($M)
Calculate distances "as the crow flies". For remote
areas, use factor of 1.2 or as required
Peaking factor = 1.5x average annual day
Standard used
For standardization, use WTP w/ UV cost
estimates
2003 planning costs, updated with mid-2010 CCI
Treatment
plant
Pipeline contingency factor of 1.5 includes
allotment for distance
Distance
For treatment structures
For transmission or raw water withdrawal facilities
use appropriate factors
Treatment facilities designed for peak day capacity
Capacity
540.4 300
458.1 250
374.2 200
288.5 150
200.0 100
163.6 80
126.3 60
87.9
47.6
26.2
w/UV
40
20
10
Q (MGD)
1
1. Peak Daily Demand (MGD) of Capacity
Operating and maintenance expenses
$0.75 per 1,000 gallons
0.50% of initial capital expense per year (pumps)
$1,000 per mile per year (pipeline)
$0.07 per kWh general
$0.12 per kWh peak power demand
130 C factor
0.75 Pump & motor efficiency
10% of dynamic head for minor friction loss
Standard used
Total cost for running plant (including electricity) Treatment plant
O&M
Includes all O&M expenses other than electricity
2 personnel inspect 2x per year + periodic line
cleaning
Pump and
pipeline O&M
Based on 2010 rates (not independently
estimating inflation)
Higher rate used only when ALL pumping
assessed to occur during peak power demand
periods (very limited cases)
Pumping costs
Technical Advisors heavily leveraged data from the current
Metro Water plan for option evaluation
Key data used in analysis
(not exhaustive)
Key data used in analysis
(not exhaustive)
Current and projected water demand and
supply
Figure ES-2, Page ES-7
Water usage profile by customer category
and end use
Figure 3-3, Page 3-3
Per capita indoor and outdoor water
consumption, by county
Table 3-2, Page 3-7
District wide results (cost, yield) of
conservation measure evaluation
Table 4-2, Page 4-5
Primary Purpose
Primary Purpose
Estimate potential water shortfall in 2012
Estimate yield for conservation measures
such as toilet retrofits, showerheads and
faucets, pricing etc.
Determine yield that is incremental to what
is already in the plan, for conservation
measures
Source: MNGWPD Water Supply and Water Conservation Management Plan (May 2009)
Besides quantitative data, plan was referenced extensively
for option implementation/policy considerations
Appendix V
Survey results
December 2009
Survey #1
Feedback on guiding principles, initial portfolios, individual options
Distributed following TF meeting #2 (Nov 24, 2009)
Recap: Survey #1 examined three main topics
Principles of
option
evaluation
Portfolio
review
Option
assessments
By what principles do you evaluate potential solutions?
Which considerations matter more/less?
To what degree would you consider
mandated conservation (vs. incentives)?
state control (vs. local government)?
interbasin transfers into Metro district?
...
To what degree do you support the initial 2015 and 2020
solution portfolios? What would you change?
To what degree do you support a given option for inclusion
in the solution portfolio?
Would you endorse this option even if Lake Lanier were re-
authorized as a supply source?
1
2
3
Survey #1
Task Force Survey #1: Context
Survey intended as a means to collect your input
Not a "voting" mechanism
Used to identify areas of agreement and recognize dissenting views
Recognize there are some inherent limitations
Cost and yield figures, while comparable, are nonetheless estimates
Material has degree of technical complexity- challenging for a non-technical
Task Force
Imperfect information regarding options (given lack of full hydrology studies,
downstream impact studies)
Significant response rate achieved 64 of 87 (74%)
Respondent pool makeup closely resembles that of overall Task Force
Source: Water Contingency Planning Task Force Survey results
Survey #1
Task Force Survey #1: Summary (I)
Principles of option evaluation
Principles
of option
evaluation
General consensus that conservation should be
incentive-driven
Some acceptance of transfers on temporary
basis to address a shortfall would be acceptable,
but many question feasibility of this
Recognition that cost efficiency and
environmental impact must be balanced
Notable division over issues of local vs. state
control
1
Survey #1
Task Force Survey #1: Summary (II)
Portfolio review
Portfolio
review
Reaction to 2020 portfolio generally positive;
2015 more mixed due to high cost and low
practicality
Some concerns cited regarding inability to close
2012 gap and uncertainty around downstream
impacts
2
Survey #1
Task Force Survey #1: Summary (III)
Option assessment
Feedback provides some logic for "alternate" 2020 portfolio,
designed around multiple considerations beyond cost efficiency
Option
assessment
Incentive-driven conserve options stand out as
"no regret" moves (ie, supported even with
Lanier reauthorization)
Indirect Reuse, Reservoirs and groundwater
supported as "contingency" options (ie, wouldn't
support if Lanier reauthorized)
Leak abatement supported, despite relatively
high cost
Inter-basin transfers show mixed support, strong
areas of dissent
3
Survey #1
Executive summary
Principles
Fairly strong agreement that conservation should be incentive-driven and that temporary
transfers are acceptable to address a shortfall...
"Should rely on incentives as much as possible, but portions may require mandate"
"Conservation and water efficiency should be the underpinning both incentives and mandates
should be pursued"
"The problem is large, all options should be in play"
But group is significantly divided over local vs. state control and long-term inter-basin transfers
"Local government would be more effective" vs. "State will need to set some rules and parameters"
"Metro area needs to eat this one" vs. "Transfers [into Metro area] should certainly be considered"
"Moving water around does not solve the problem" vs. "Water transfers are essential and should
be used long and short term"
Most agree that both cost and environmental impact should be considered
"Both [cost and environmental impact] are important and should be given appropriate
consideration"
"Cost effectiveness and environmental impact all need to be balanced"
Survey #1
Georgia should consider establishing market
mechanisms to price water and allow transfer of
sustainable yields from surplus regions
Solutions should be prioritized first on the basis
of minimizing environmental impact, secondly
on cost efficiency
Water transfers, if temporary in nature, would
be acceptable to address a shortfall
Water should not be transferred from outside
the Metro Water District into the District the
Metro District should supply its own needs
Local governments, utilities should retain policy
control- versus state directed policy
Conservation should be incentive-driven, not
mandated
General agreement on incentive-driven conserv. and temporary
transfers; division noted for 'local/state control', IBT
Key principles
Key principles
4
16
3
30
11
5
27
9
16
7
3
7 7
31
14
13
22
9 9
11
5
21
11
15
12
5
12
5
15
27
Strongly
disagree
(1)
Disagree
(2)
Neutral/
indifferent
(3)
Agree
(4)
Strongly agree
(5)
3.5
3.1
2.7
3.7
2.9
3.4
Note: n=64
Mean score xx
Survey #1
Georgia should consider establishing market
mechanisms to price water and allow transfer of
sustainable yields from surplus regions
Solutions should be prioritized first on the basis
of minimizing environmental impact, secondly
on cost efficiency
Water transfers, if temporary in nature, would
be acceptable to address a shortfall
Water should not be transferred from outside
the Metro Water District into the District the
Metro District should supply its own needs
Local governments, utilities should retain policy
control- versus state directed policy
Conservation should be incentive-driven, not
mandated
General agreement on principles across most groups
Conservation-group affiliated members often differ
Key principles
Key principles
Business Conservation Government Regional council
Regional council Government Conservation Business
Strongly disagree (1)
<1.8
Disagree (2)
1.8 - 2.8
Neutral/indifferent (3)
2.8 - 3.3
Agree (4)
3.3 - 4.3
Strongly agree (5)
> 4.3
Note: Groups defined as: "Business" - state and local business leaders; "Conservation" - state and local conservation experts; "Government" - state government officials, legislators, local
elected officials; "Regional council" - chairs of state's regional water councils Source: Water Contingency Planning Task Force Survey results
(#) = Score assigned to response
## - ## = Range of scores shaded
n=40 n=6 n=11 n=7
Survey #1
Executive summary
Portfolios
Task Force members generally expressed positive reaction to 2020 option portfolio
"Broadly based and well considered"
"Good identification of options"
"All should be considered and a combination of these will be necessary over the long term"
Reactions much more mixed for 2015 portfolio based on cost and practicality
Very costly solution, and not practical; Indirect Potable Reuse a very expensive work-around
Some significant concerns raised...
"Appropriate mix of options, but none solve problem by 2012"
"We should be focusing on infrastructure to ensure that water supply can be shared as of July
2012"
"[Have some] concerns over downstream impacts"
Significant value in deferring to 2020, if we have the flexibility to pursue longer-term solutions
"Good list, time is real issue, not options. List magnifies time issue"
"The options make sense and mix is good if we can wait until 2020 to hit our goal"
"Many options look attractive through 2020, but we need to get started and make commitments
ASAP"
"How confident are we that the court will negotiate the end date?"
Survey #1
Reaction to 2020 portfolio generally positive, while many
cite high cost and low practicality of 2015 option portfolio
Reaction to mix
Reaction to mix
"Reservoir expansion and creation with
conservation measures are the best options"
"Conservation measures need to be adopted
both inside and outside of Metro area"
"We need to get more out of conservation"
"Concerned that conservation measures
alone aren't going to make a substantive
difference"
"Cannot get there by 2012, and doing it by
2015 would be expensive"
"Would probably eliminate ASR and indirect
potable reuse... not realistic"
"Indirect potable reuse is a very expensive
way to do what we're already doing
drawing water out of the ACF and putting it
back after using and treating it"
Notable comments
Notable comments
43
63
17
72
0
25
50
75
100
Business Conservation Government Regional council
% positive
43
38
17
47
0
25
50
75
100
Business Conservation
% positive
Regional council Government
2020
2015
Note: groups defined as: "Business" - state and local business leaders; "Conservation" - state and local conservation experts; "Government" - state government officials, legislators, local
elected officials; "Regional council" - chairs of state's regional water councils
n=32 n=6 n=8 n=7
n=30 n=6 n=8 n=7
Survey #1
Executive summary
Options
Group clearly agrees that more can, and should be, accomplished via
conservation
Incentive-driven fixture retrofits + conservation pricing identified as options to be
pursued even if Lake Lanier reauthorization is obtained
Task Force members generally favor incentive-driven implementation, but many
recognize that mandates serve a role in contingency situations
"[Mandates] may not go over well, but [they are] decisive and effective"
In the event of no reauthorization, reservoirs + groundwater supply emerge as
front-running "contingency" options
Desalination, septic conversion, and groundwater from south GA clearly identified
as unfavorable options to pursue
"No support [for desalination] no way our situation in Georgia requires this
measure"
"[Septic conversions] too small, too expensive, too disruptive to
homeowners"
Survey #1
Contrasting "level of support" with "pursue option anyway"
identifies "no regret" and "contingency" options
Percent support even with Lanier reauthorization
Strongly oppose
Strongly support
Average level
of support
"No regret" "Contingency"
"Unfavorable"
Neutral
Options to consider
only if Lake Lanier is
not reauthorized
General agreement to
pursue these options even
with Lanier reauthorization
Average support
based on respondents'
rating of options
Percentage of respondent's that chose "Implement
option even with Lanier reauthorization"
0 50 100
Survey #1
Incentive-based conservation generally viewed "no regret"
Groundwater supply and reservoirs most favorable "contingency" options
Strongly oppose
Strongly support
Average level
of support
"No regret"
"Unfavorable"
Neutral
Source: Water Contingency Planning Task Force Survey results, n=64
0 50 100
Desalination
Indirect
Potable
Reuse
Capture
Conserve
Control
Incentive-based
fixture retrofits +
conservation
pricing
"Contingency" Reservoir
expansions
Groundwater +
new reservoirs
Mandated fixture retrofits, outdoor
water restrictions, clothes washer
rebates
Septic conversions
Leak abatement, sub-
metering, rain sensors
Survey #1
Incentive-based fixture retrofit and conservation pricing
viewed as "no regret" options
50 75 100
(6 MGD, $125/MG)
Cooling towers standards
(5 MGD, $170/MG)
incentives (2.5 MGD, $350/MG)
Toilet retrofit incentives
(2.4 MGD, $400/MG)
Conserve
Strongly support
Neutral
Average level
of support
Note: n=64
Backup Survey #1
0 25 50
Indirect potable reuse
(252 MGD, $750/MG)
Capture
Conserve
Control
Following additional conserve measures, reservoirs and
groundwater most favored "contingency" options
Strongly support
Neutral
Average level
of support
Note: n=64
Big Haynes expansion (47 MGD, $305/MG)
Tussahaw expansion (20 MGD, $260/MG)
Dog River expansion (48 MGD, $300/MG)
Etowah Dam expansion (41 MGD, $615/MG)
NW Forsyth reservoir (88 MGD, $510/MG)
Richland Creek reservoir (larger) (80 MGD, $580/MG)
Lawrenceville groundwater (6 MGD, $300/MG)
Spalding groundwater (6 MGD, $325/MG)
Bartow groundwater (7 MGD, $345/MG)
Clothes washer rebate (1 MGD, $1100/MG)
Clothes washer increased rebate (2 MGD,
$1000/MG)
Water restrictions 1 day/week (22 MGD, $10/MG)
Toilet retrofit direct install (14 MGD, $350/MG)
Showerhead / faucet direct install (11 MGD,
$250/MG)
Leak abatement (27MGD, $120/MG)
Spray rinse valves rebate (0.3 MGD, $120/MG)
MF sub-metering 50% (1.7 MGD, $160/MG)
MF sub-metering 100% (3.3 MGD, $170/MG)
Rain sensor 50% (8 MGD, $70/MG)
Cooling tower rebates (2.7 MGD, $170/MG)
Backup Survey #1
0 25 50
Forsyth septic to sewer
(3 MGD, $6600/MG)
Gwinnett septic to sewer
(5 MGD, $6600/MG)
Hall septic to sewer
(4 MGD, $6700/MG)
Desalination
(200 MGD, $6000/MG)
South GA Groundwater (200 MGD, $1600/MG)
West Point Lake transfer (10 MGD, $1100/MG)
Capture
Control
Septic conversions and desalination decidedly
"unfavorable" options
Neutral
Strongly oppose
Average level
of support
Note: n=64
Backup Survey #1
General preference for incentive-based measures, but
recognize need for mandates in some instances
Incentive
driven
conserv.
options
1
Alternative
mandated
conserv.
options
2
1. Includes toilet retrofit incentives, showerhead/faucets incentives, MF sub-metering (50%), spray rinse valve rebates, cooling tower rebates 2. Includes toilet retrofit direct install, showerhead
faucets direct install, MF sub-metering (100%), spray rinse valve direct install, cooling tower standards
Note: n=59
"Just makes sense in too many
ways - we have to go after new
technology like this [efficient
fixtures]"
"Consider incentives to local water
authorities to encourage local
practices"
"[Mandates] may not go over well,
but [they are] decisive and
effective"
"Direct install is the only option
that results in substantial water
savings"
"Strongly support if cost is paid by
property owner"
Level of support
Level of support
1 3
12
20
23
Strongly
support
Somewhat
support
Somewhat
opposed
Strongly
opposed
Neutral/
indifferent
2
7
13
19 18
Strongly
support
Somewhat
support
Somewhat
opposed
Neutral/
indifferent
Strongly
opposed
4.0
Mean score xx
3.7
Survey #1
Comparison of support vs. relative cost-efficiency can
highlight outliers, inform alternate portfolio development
Lawrenceville ASR
Leak abatement
Lake Burton
IBT
Lake
Hartwell IBT
West Point
Lake IBT
Capture
Conserve
Control
0 1,000 1,500 500
Strongly oppose
Strongly support
Average
level of
support
Neutral
Cost efficiency ($/MG)
Outdoor
watering
restrictions
Note: n=64; Only options with cost efficiency <$1,500/MG shown
Source: Water Contingency Planning Task Force Survey resuls, Technical Advisory Panel analysis
Fixture
retrofit
mandates
2015
~890
2020
~410
Better Worse
Survey #1
Note: n=64; not every respondent answered every question
1c. Residential clothes washers (increased washer rebates)
Yield: 0.61.9 MGD, Cost efficiency: $1,000/MG
Capital cost: $20M, Timing: 3 yrs
1c. Residential clothes washers (washer rebate program)
Yield: 0.20.6 MGD, Cost efficiency: $1,100/MG
1b. Showerheads and faucets (direct install)
Yield: 10.011.3 MGD, Cost efficiency: $250/MG
1b. Showerheads and faucets (increased incentives)
1a. Toilet retrofits (direct install)
1a. Toilet retrofits (increased incentives)
Detailed survey results
Conserve (I)
Option
Option
3
7
16 17
12
3
6
15
17
15
3
10
12
20
12
2 2
7
22 23
4
9
10
21
13
3
7
20
26
Strongly
opposed
(1)
Somewhat
opposed
(2)
Neutral/
indifferent
(3)
Somewhat
support
(4)
Strongly
support
(5)
4.2
3.5
4.1
3.5
3.5
Mean score xx
3.6
Survey #1
3b. Cooling towers (cooling tower standards)
Yield: 5.4 MGD, Cost efficiency: $170/MG
3b. Cooling towers (cooling tower audits)
3a. Spray rinse valves (direct install program)
Capital cost: $1.1M, Timing: 3 yrs
3a. Spray rinse valves (rebate program)
Capital cost: $0.2M, Timing: 3 yrs
2a. Multi family sub-metering (retrofit 100% existing homes)
2a. Multi family sub-metering (retrofit 50% existing homes)
Conserve (II)
Option
Option
1
14
19
21
0
1
14
25
15
2
7
16 15
14
0
4
15
17
22
1
6
11
15
22
1
6
14 14
21
Strongly
opposed
(1)
Somewhat
opposed
(2)
Neutral/
indifferent
(3)
Somewhat
support
(4)
Strongly
support
(5)
4.0
3.6
4.0
4.1
Mean score xx
3.9
3.9
Survey #1
Leak abatement
Yield: 27 MGD, Cost efficiency: $1,200/MG
Yield: 6 MGD, Cost efficiency: $125/MG
4b. Rain sensor irrigation (retrofit 50% existing)
4b. Rain sensor irrigation (retrofit 25% existing)
4a. Water restrictions (1 day/week schedule)
4a. Water restrictions (no daytime watering)
Yield: 4.97.2 MGD, Cost efficiency: $10/M
Conserve (III)
Option
Option
2
5 5
16
27
1 2
7
17
27
1 2
10
21 22
2
10
21 22
4
11
9
14
18
6
12
9
13
15
Strongly
opposed
(1)
Somewhat
opposed
(2)
Neutral/
indifferent
(3)
Somewhat
support
(4)
Strongly
support
(5)
3.3
3.6
4.1
4.1
4.2
Mean score xx
4.1
Survey #1
Grey water reuse retrofit
Capital cost: $3,300M, Timing: 2 yrs
Non-potable reuse (golf courses, parks)
Direct potable reuse
Indirect potable reuse (6 county)
Pipeline replacement
Conserve (IV)
Option
Option
7
11
17
10
12
1
4
19 19
13
7
12
14
16
7
1
4
15
16
20
10
6
10
14
16
Strongly
opposed
(1)
Somewhat
opposed
(2)
Neutral/
indifferent
(3)
Somewhat
support
(4)
Strongly
support
(5)
3.4
3.9
3.1
3.2
Mean score xx
3.7
Survey #1
Hard Labor Creek reservoir
Newton Bear Creek reservoir
Etowah River Dam No. 1 reservoir expansion
Tussahaw Creek reservoir expansion
Dog river reservoir expansion
Big Haynes Creek reservoir expansion
Capture (I)
Option
Option
6
9
13
17
9
5 5
13
19
11
2
4
7
26
16
2
3
8
21 22
3
2
5
23 23
2 2
6
24
22
Strongly
opposed
(1)
Somewhat
opposed
(2)
Neutral/
indifferent
(3)
Somewhat
support
(4)
Strongly
support
(5)
4.1
3.9
3.5
3.3
Mean score xx
4.1
4.0
Survey #1
New reservoir E of Gwinnett
New reservoir NW of Forsyth
Richland creek reservoir (larger)
Richland creek reservoir (planned)
Glades reservoir
Fulton Bear Creek reservoir
Capture (II)
Option
Option
6
8
13
15
12
3
4
7
24
17
3 3
8
24
15
5 4
7
26
13
4
7
9
21
13
6 6
13
19
11
Strongly
opposed
(1)
Somewhat
opposed
(2)
Neutral/
indifferent
(3)
Somewhat
support
(4)
Strongly
support
(5)
3.4
3.6
3.8
3.9
3.4
Mean score xx
3.7
Survey #1
Bartow county GW system
Spalding county GW system
Suwanee/Gainesville GW system
Lawrenceville GW system
Large Quarry
Small Quarry
Capture (III)
Option
Option
2
4
10
21
17
2
3
10
20
18
2
5
9
21
17
2
5
9
21
18
2
9
18 17
9
2
4
18
20
12
Strongly
opposed
(1)
Somewhat
opposed
(2)
Neutral/
indifferent
(3)
Somewhat
support
(4)
Strongly
support
(5)
3.6
3.4
3.9
3.9
3.9
3.9
Mean score xx
Survey #1
Savannah desalination plant
Lawrenceville ASR
Floyd/Bartow ASR
GW for non-potable use
South GA GW system
Palmetto GW system
Capture (IV)
Option
Option
22
11
8
13
3
6
10
19 19
2
7
9
18
13
6
2
5
11
20
17
13
11 11
15
5
2
5
10
23
14
Strongly
opposed
(1)
Somewhat
opposed
(2)
Neutral/
indifferent
(3)
Somewhat
support
(4)
Strongly
support
(5)
3.8
2.8
3.8
3.0
3.0
2.4
Mean score xx
Survey #1
Hall septic conversion
Forsyth septic conversion
Gwinnett septic conversion
Capture (V)
Option
Option
12
16
12 12
5
12
15
12 13
5
12
15
12 13
5
Strongly
opposed
(1)
Somewhat
opposed
(2)
Neutral/
indifferent
(3)
Somewhat
support
(4)
Strongly
support
(5)
2.7
Mean score xx
2.7
2.7
Survey #1
Tennessee basin transfer
Control
Option
Option
8
4
8
19
16
12
14 14
6
11
9
6
11
18
11
10
7
12
21
6
Strongly
opposed
(1)
Somewhat
opposed
(2)
Neutral/
indifferent
(3)
Somewhat
support
(4)
Strongly
support
(5)
Mean score xx
3.6
2.8
3.3
3.1
Survey #1
Survey #2 feedback
Feedback on support + endorsement of 2020 portfolios
Distributed following TF meeting #3 (Dec 11, 2009)
Executive summary
Portfolio endorsement
When asked which portfolio they would endorse, Task Force members chose "Alternate"
portfolio by a narrow margin
While almost all recognize the need for, and are willing to endorse mandates in a "dire"
situation, significant proportion feels strongly that initial implementation be incentive-based
However, all report generally high levels of support for both, indicating strong
endorsement of the common core options
TF primarily divided over willingness to accept conservation mandates as the "norm"
Many suggest a balanced mix of incentives and mandates as optimal approach
Task Force members do suggest additional consideration/ analysis in three main areas
Analyze potential impact on downstream resources before implementing any option
Evaluate cost-benefit of additional reregulation capacity on the Chattahoochee below
Buford Dam (eg, dredge Morgan Falls reservoir)
Consider developing more widely incorporated, bi-directional system interconnections to
facilitate flexibility in supplying water to areas of need
Task Force members provided feedback on "Primary" and
"Alternate" 2020 portfolios
~360 ~1,660 Wtd. Avg. ~460 ~370 ~1,970 Wtd. Avg. ~470
27 17 1,200 Leak abatement 27 17 1,200 Leak abatement
80 620 580 Richland creek reservoir (larger) 80 620 580 Richland creek reservoir (larger)
41 350 615 Etowah River Dam No. 1 expansion 88 660 510 New reservoir NW of Forsyth
47 270 390 Big Haynes Creek reservoir expansion 47 270 390 Big Haynes Creek reservoir expansion
15 25 350 Toilet retrofits (direct install program) 1 25 375 Toilet retrofits (increased rebate program)
2 3 375 Palmetto GWsystem 2 3 375 Palmetto GWsystem
5 10 375 Suwanee GWsystem 5 10 375 Suwanee GWsystem
7 11 345 Bartow county GWsystem 7 11 345 Bartow county GWsystem
6 7 325 Spalding county GWsystem 6 7 325 Spalding county GWsystem
10 8 250
(direct install program)
1 8 300
(increased rebate program)
48 230 300 Dog river reservoir expansion 48 230 300 Dog river reservoir expansion
6 5 300 Lawrenceville GWsystem 6 5 300 Lawrenceville GWsystem
20 64 260 Tussahaw Creek reservoir expansion 20 64 260 Tussahaw Creek reservoir expansion
5 6 170 Cooling towers (required standards) 3 6 170 Cooling towers (rebate program)
3 6 170
existing units)
2 6 165
existing homes)
15 8 155
GWfor non-potable use (parks, golf courses,
etc)
15 8 155
GWfor non-potable use (parks, golf
courses, etc)
6 14 125 Conservation pricing 6 14 125 Conservation pricing
2 1 110 Spray rinse valves (direct install program) 0.3 1 115 Spray rinse valves (rebate program)
6 6 70
Rain sensors
3 6 60
Rain sensors
7 0 10 Water restrictions (no daytime watering) 7 0 10 Water restrictions (no daytime watering)
Yield
(MGD)
Capital
cost
($M)
Cost
efficiency
($/MG) Option
Yield
(MGD)
Capital
cost
($M)
Cost
efficiency
($/MG) Option
Alternate 2020 portfolio Primary 2020 Portfolio
Backup
Note: Changes from "primary" to alternate" portfolio include:
1) Most aggressive retrofit/efficiency program implementation, and
2) Etowah River Dam 1 expansion instead of New Reservoir NW of Forsyth
Respondents reported degree of support for each portfolio,
and choice of portfolio to endorse
Backup
TF supports both portfolios nearly equally - slightly favors
"Alternate" when asked to choose between the two
Level of support
Level of support
Most often cited additions,
deletions, concerns
Most often cited additions,
deletions, concerns
"[Add] dredging Morgan Falls"
"[Remove] daytime watering
restriction it is not sustainable"
"More attention to developing an
interactive piping system [bi-
directional] around metro area"
P
r
i
m
a
r
y
A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
e
2
6
12
23
15
Strongly
oppose
Strongly
support
Support Neutral Oppose
1
9 9
23
14
Strongly
support
Support Neutral Oppose Strongly
oppose
% of TF
members
endorsing
1
% of TF
members
endorsing
1
40%
(23 responses)
47%
(27 responses)
1. When asked which portfolio they endorse, 14% (8 respondents) chose "Other"
Note: n=58; mean score reported on scale of 1 to 5, where 1 = "Strongly oppose" and 5 = "Strongly support"
Source: Water Contingency Planning Task Force Survey #2
3.7
3.7
"[We should] pursue a new
reservoir NW of Forsyth"
"We need to deal w/ septic tanks
and their consumptive nature"
"Concern is simply that we
haven't identified funds needed
to implement mandates"
Mean score xx
Mandates deemed acceptable in "dire" situation, but
general preference for incentive-based conservation
"I do believe that expanding the Etowah river dam would be easier politically than
permitting and building a new reservoir"
"In general, I support reservoir expansion over new reservoirs, but believe that a new
reservoir NW of Forsyth could be a viable alternative if operated as a public utility"
"It doesn't make sense to remove [from Primary portfolio] a huge potential supply
addition [NW Forsyth reservoir] that would be funded with private dollars"
Reservoir
expansions vs.
new
"The 'yet to be analyzed' potential impact on yield to downstream resources remains
a serious concern"
Downstream
impacts
"Prefer the primary because I am more inclined to base conservation on incentives
and market pricing versus government mandate"
"[Remove] 'No daytime watering' - this is a 'draconian' measure"
"Mandatory is not a great approach...I would reconsider if situation was truly dire"
Incentives vs.
mandates
Category
Category
Illustrative conditions for endorsement
Illustrative conditions for endorsement
"Alternate" portfolio favored by narrow margin
Business members generally favor Primary while other groups favor Alternate
"If you had to choose between these two
portfolios, which would you endorse?"
"If you had to choose between these two
portfolios, which would you endorse?"
Overall, group endorses Alternate (~47%) over
Primary (~40%)
But margin of preference is relatively thin -
only 4 responses separate the two
Opinions differ mainly over conservation
implementation
"Conservation measures should be by county
[as needed], not by all counties in aggregate"
"Oppose retrofit measures that require 100%
financing by utility, creating additional
pressure on water rates"
"Prefer the primary I am more inclined to
base conservation on incentives and market
pricing versus government mandate"
"If conservation measures are to work,
adoption should be mandatory"
1
(3%)
14
(42%)
18
(55%)
3
(50%)
2
(33%)
1
(17%)
4
(44%)
3
(33%)
2
(22%)
8
(80%)
2
(20%)
Business Conservation Government Regional
council
23
(40%)
27
(47%)
8
(14%)
Overall
Other
Alternate
Primary
0
100
20
40
60
80
% endorsement
n=33 n=6 n=9 n=10 n=58
Proportion of Task Force endorsing each
portfolio, segmented by sub-group
Proportion of Task Force endorsing each
portfolio, segmented by sub-group

WATER CONTINGENCY PLANNING TASK FORCE

COMMENTS RECEIVED

FROM

TASK FORCE MEMBERS

AND

OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES

October-December 2009
To access the interactive Index, click on the Bookmarks tab on the upper left

~ 1 ~
Water Contingency Task Force:
Comments received from Task Force members and other interested parties
(the comments below are listed in the order they were received)
Brad Shaw Home Depot
As I mentioned to Tim yesterday and to Sam Williams today at the APC lunch, The Home Depot
is anxious to help develop solutions on the domestic conservation front. Ive already alerted our
relevant merchants here, and were ready to engage as needed.
Larry Gellerstedt - Cousins Properties Incorporated
I think the technical solutions are fairly clear. The key issue is educating the legislature, and the
congressional delegation that this is a critical issue for the State of Georgia, not Atlanta. This is
an opportunity for the leaders to be real leaders on the old reality of two Georgias.
Kit Dunlap - President / CEO - Greater Hall Chamber of Commerce
Water Conservation:
Business
1. Raise money from business community for water conservation education / pr campaign.
Metro Water District is working with adv/pr firm and have the basics, but we have no
money. With plenty of rain right now and full reservoirs, our attention to water
conservation will fade.
2. Coca Cola Provide and distribute low flow pre-rinse spray valves to restaurants and food
service establishments.
3. Electric Companies Provide rebates for residential dishwashers and washing machines
that are both Energy Star rated and have a water factor of 4.0 or less.
4. Gas & Electric Companies Provide rebates for hot water on demand systems.
5. Real Estate Community Retrofit on resale for both residential and commercial buildings
(includes office and hotels).
State
l. ax credits for: retrofitting large office buildings and hotels; high efficiency commercial
dishwashers and clothes washers with a water factor of 4.0 or less; digital x-ray machines;
adding conductivity meters on cooling towers; dental vacuum pumps; steam sterilizer
retrofits; air-cooled ice machines, connectionless steamers
2. Update state plumbing code: Require high efficiency fixtures; prohibit once through
cooling and require water meters on cooling towers
3. Increase state financial support grants / low interest loans for water and wastewater
infrastructure.
Water Supply
1. Move forward with an actual plan for bringing already identified reservoirs / and new
reservoirs.. on line: speed-up permitting process; actively seek public/private partnerships;
incentives for governments to work together with counties and across county-lines.
2. Identify reservoirs that could be dredged with least bureaucratic hoops.
3. The right person ./ actively seek an agreement to withdraw water from Tennessee River.
4. Identify the right place for a desalinization plant/ with cost for future.
Other
1. Task Force needs minority representation. Suggestions: Robert Brown, Birdell Jackson
2. In the next year, create a Water Executive position (please dont call them a czar), that will
be the permanent person / position that will work on these issues everyday. Needs to be

~ 2 ~
high profile that can work with state and federal government, business community... and
hopefully carry-on with transitional changes in Governor / Congress, etc....
3. Educate, Educate, Educate.....the State Legislature
4. Continue education / pr of downstream, upstream..of Metro Atlanta....plan of action for the
next 3 years....from Governor and others.
Senator Judson Hill
Two ideas:
1. A land swap with a quarry or two. The state could research land that could be used for a
rock quarry, purchase the land and expedite permitting for quarry use; then allow an
existing aging quarry to donate their quarry to the state for a deduction. The state can use
the old quarry for a reservoir. At that point the quarry could enter into a 100 year lease for
the new land and the state would receive the revenues. This could shorten the permitting
timeline substantially. There may be 2 to 4 quarries like this.
2. We also discussed the Tennessee border matter. I believe we should actively pursue this
issue - the legal case as well as purchasing water from the TVA, etc. Keeping this issue on
the table may help inspire the other state delegations to meet to discuss these matters.
Sally Bethea Upper Chattahoochee Riverkeepers
As you probably know, the leadership of the GA Water Coalition is meeting with members of the
task force/staff today and I will be mentioning the issue you and I discussed the 750 cfs flow
requirement in the Chattahoochee at Peachtree Creek (PTC); however, this flow issue is by no
means the only absolute on our list of concerns/recommendations regarding the work of your
water task force.

Regarding the 750 cfs flow, this instantaneous requirement has been in state law since the 1970s;
it was adopted to protect designated uses for downstream waters, including water quality. On
several occasions in the past two years, the state has asked the Corps to use a target flow of 650
cfs at PTC, instead of 750 cfs, to allow more water to be kept in Lake Lanier; yet, the state has
not provided adequate water quality and flow monitoring at the compliance point or downstream
to ensure that designated uses are met. Neither has an appropriate review of impacts been
conducted under NEPA to allow this flow reduction.

We believe that the state should undertake a comprehensive study, working with federal
resources agencies, to determine if the 750 cfs flow is sufficiently protective now, and will be
sufficiently protective in the future given growth projections, to ensure that designated
downstream uses will be met at all times. Until such time as this independent, peerreviewed
study is completed and a new regulation is adopted by the state, the 750 cfs flow at PTC must be
met at all times, even during droughts; in addition, the state must establish sufficient flow and
water quality monitoring stations and the data collected must be made easily available to the
public.

Thank you for asking for more detail about this issue. As mentioned above, I will provide you
with other key issues for UCR and the GA Water Coalition after todays meeting.

~ 3 ~
Todd Pealock, CEO of the Habersham EMC
Mr. Pealock waned to provided to us with some information on a potential reservoir in
Habersham, which he estimated could provide 30,000 acre-feet of water storage capacity.
Diane Minick, Director, The Upper Etowah River Alliancewww.etowahriver.org
I respectfully suggest that Atlanta also focus on retrofitting buildings in Atlanta to collect the free
rain water using cisterns. This water can be used as grey water to flush Atlanta's toilets or can be
filtered to be used for drinking. Five Season's Brewing Company is leading the way by
collecting all of that free water, filtering it and using it to make their beer. Why can't Atlanta
collect it on as many buildings as possible to use. It will solve several problems:
1. It won't be as costly as taking water from other river basins and piping it to Atlanta;
2. It can be done immediately;
3. It will save money since the need for water from the City will be reduced so peoples water
bills will go down and the water plants cost of energy to clean the water will go down;
4. It will reduce the stormwater volume entering the City's stormdrain system significantly
which will cut down or even eliminate the flooding issues on Atlanta's streets and will
reduce the impact on the storm drain system.

This will also save energy at the waste water treatment plants and possibly eliminate the release
of partially treated sewage to the river. Just think, a 1,000 sq.ft roof in a 1-inch rain will generate
600 gallons of water. According to the Texas Water Harvesting Manual, 0.62 gallons of water
can be collected per square foot of roof per inch of rain. If a roof is 10,000 square feet, in a 1-inch
rain it will generate 6,200 gallons of water. We are getting between 3 and 4 inches of rain today.

That would mean for the 3" rain, 18,000 gallons of water would be available to be used. Think of
how much water is being lost that could be used to solve our water needs.
Bruce Jackson, Partner, Arnall, Golden Gregory www.agg.com
Summary: The South Fulton Municipal Water & Sewer Authority has proposed to build the Bear
Creek reservoir on Bear Creek in South Fulton for the cities of Palmetto, Fairburn and Union
City. The City of Atlanta opposes the project. In the past the Metropolitan North Georgia Water
Planning District has sided with Atlanta. Construction of the Bear Creek reservoir would reduce
the water purchases by the three cities from Atlanta. Of course Atlanta does not want to lose the
revenue from the three cities and by controlling the regions withdrawal and treatment of water,
the three cities will remain dependent on Atlanta for water. Florida and Alabama have also
objected claiming that it might reduce the flow of water into the Chattahoochee from Bear Creek.

Friday's court hearing is a TRO hearing and is an attempt by Atlanta to enjoin further work on the
reservoir application process. The matter relates to Atlanta's contention that the loss of revenue
will make it impossible for Atlanta to comply with the consent decree in the Upper
Chattahoochee Riverkeeper sewage discharge case. This matter is an excellent example of the
impediments to efforts to capture of water and marks the very issues the Task Force is charged
with addressing. Someone from the technical advisory board might want to interview Brad Sears
of Newnan (770-253-3880) counsel to the City of Fairburn, who is very technically
knowledgeable about this matter. He also relates that Atlanta wants to expand its water supply
infrastructure into South Fulton to capture more water revenue, which begs the question of where
such water is going to come from given the ACF case. Brad would have more details on that
matter as well.

~ 4 ~
Dargan Scott Cole, Carlton Fields Attorneys at Law
Attached for your review is one plan for meeting the immediate needs of the counties affected by
Judge Magnuson's July 2009 ruling in the TriState Water Rights Litigation. The plan uses an
average of each county's actual water use in January for 20072009 as baseline demand and the
average water use in August 20072009 as peak month demand. It then illustrates one scenario
for meeting those immediate needs.

The plan recognizes that some jurisdictions will have water available in 2012 that will not be
available in later years. Therefore, it looks for additional midterm and longterm solutions. In
many cases the shortterm solutions rely on moving large amounts of water from point to point
and an increased reliance on indirect reuse of water. Both situations call for quick action if they
are to be implemented before the July 1012 deadline.
Alec Poitevint Former Federal Commissioner ACF & ACT Water Compacts Member
Ga Water Task Force
The immediate drilling of more wells across Georgia must be part of our Water Plan. It is a
process that should have never been slowed All obstacles should be evaluated and within
reason removed.
Bob Gravlee, Production Coordinator/Graphic Designer, Site Selection Magazine
Dear sirs or to whom it may concern:

Okay, this may sound a bit crazy and I certainly havent researched this but Ive heard
somewhere before that drier westerns states such as Arizona and Nevada and have actually used
underground reservoirs (whether man-made or natural I do not know) to store water for their
growing populations albeit as a back-up to a drought or deficit in water access. What if
Georgia did the same thing across the state? Albany, Tifton, Valdosta, Columbus, Commerce,
Athens, Augusta, Peachtree City, Douglas, West point, La Grange, Columbus, etc. ... all with
their own reservoirs.

In Georgia it seems to me that geologically we have an abundance of red clay and quartz granite.
Could these natural resources be used to help facilitate the construction of such reservoirs?
Perhaps the more localized education SPLOST could be replaced by a state-wide penny sales tax
to accomplish this end. Federal stimulus dollars could also be used towards this end (if theyre
not completely earmarked already) and the construction of these reservoirs, Im thinking, would
create more than a few jobs.

It would take intentionality and prolonged commitment by politicians and citizens alike. Just a
thought. Also I would seriously urge legislators to remember Governor Perdues public prayer
for rain last summer when we were experiencing a severe drought. Some may argue it was
purely coincidental that following that gesture of faith on his part, and of others who joined him
in prayer, we experienced what is being called now a once in a millennium downpour (i.e.,
specifically the rainfall of the past couple of months) and this all within a year. And hes still
our governor, that is to say this happened during his tenure. Just plain ol dumb luck? I for one
dont think so.

Thanks for your consideration.

~ 5 ~
David Sargent, PhD, Director, Community & Economic Development, Georgia Mountains
Regional Commission
I agree with the three areas of focus and the order of priority.

Conservation begin the marketing campaign at the grammar school level and keep it in front of
every adult. BP Oil has some good commercials on TV right now as well as IMB regarding the
limited supply, and use, of our water sources.

Capture rain and ground water a conservative way of saying build the reservoirs to replace
the ones that should have been build when the dam was constructed in the 50s the one below the
dam (now Alpharetta), the one on the Chattahoochee, and the one on the Chestatee! I think this
is the most critical of the three due to population growth and weather, two uncontrollable
variables.

Reviewing current controls and management policies. This requires a course on common sense
which the US Government is evidently not interested in requiring of any of their Corps
employees. The retired Corps engineer hired to rewrite the current plan explained in his opening
remarks recently at a meeting at Lake Lanier Islands that it would take every bit of the 3 year
contract to rewrite the document because he had so many dignitaries to meet with before he could
begin! Why? I thought he was hired because of his knowledge of the operation not his ability to
apiece elected officials. He confirmed his inability to understand the need with the first slide he
posted showing that every reservoir below Buford Dam was full and water was having to be
released. This was at the time Lake Lanier was about 15 feet below full pool.

So, my recommendation is to begin with an aggressive conservation campaign followed by an
immediate construction plan for new reservoirs since the Corps has proven its inability to
regulate water resources based on existing conditions, no matter what the level of the lake.
David Horger
Conservation:
Mandate implementation of dual flush for all new residential/commercial building in impacted
areas. Offer rebate for dual flush retrofit to consumers in impacted areas.

Resources:
This is a stretch however, if the surveyed northern border of GA is incorrect, get it right and
start the move to tap the Tennessee River to supply metro ATL.

Current Mgt/Control:
A collaborative compromise with the bordering states must be somehow reached on the amount
of downstream waterflow.
Brad Currey
These are reactions to the Water Contingency Task Force comments dated 11/13/2009 received
from task force members and other interested parties.

Completely absent from this paper is the issue of data. The state, the cities and counties, and the
water utilities need to be collecting, recording and reporting reliable data in a consistent and
comparable manner. This means that we need to meter every use everywhere. We need to

~ 6 ~
measure in gallons, not cubic feet. The data keeper needs to be a disinterested party who can be
relied upon for accurate, dependable analysis of the data and of the forecasts of the utilities and
political subdivisions.

Before decisions are made about measures to be taken by the legislature and the state
government, there needs to be some realistic, reliable cost/benefit analysis so that we spend our
money where we get the most bang for the buck. In this connection, the state needs to provide
for substantial funding and incentives to make certain that the policies implemented by the
utilities and local governments are the most efficient and appropriate rather than those that are
politically driven.

Consideration should be given to regional water authorities that can coordinate such matters as
tiered water rates, conservation standards and oversee the location and management of reservoirs
where appropriate.

In the task force comments dated 11/13/2009, on page 5 under numbered paragraph 7, Georgia
Water Coalition, it is stated that "the existing ban on interbasin transfers within the Metropolitan
North Georgia Water Planning District must remain inviolate." I believe that statement is
incorrect and that under current state law interbasin transfers within the District are permitted, but
not from outside the District into the District. On page 6, numbered paragraph 10, there is a call
for immediate drilling of more wells. Elsewhere in this paper, there is mention of limitations on
the use of septic tanks.

These are two contentious issues where the facts are apparently still unclear. We need to know
whether drilling wells makes any sense in North Georgia because it is said to rest on solid
granite. We also need to have some agreement on whether septic tanks represent a consumptive
use or provide a consistent flow of clean water into streams especially during droughts. The data
on these matters appears to me to be very sketchy, suggesting that more detailed research needs
to be a high priority before we make some foolish mistakes.

The radioactive issue of interbasin transfers must be addressed. Common sense suggests that
during periods of heavy rainfall, storage of water in reservoirs near major creeks and rivers where
some of the water in the reservoir will end up in a different river basin should not be prohibited.
A perfect example is the Dawson County location currently belonging to the City of Atlanta.

Also missing from this document is any reference to a leadership role to be played by the State of
Georgia in planning, funding, overseeing and/or managing the development of reservoirs,
decisions about consistent conservation practices, oversight of rate structures, building standards,
and other related water supply functions.

The comments on page 4 about a "water executive position" points in this direction but needs to
be fleshed out. What is going on right now is that everybody is stumbling around attempting to
avoid the issue of vigorous leadership, consistent management and the use of a centralized
authority that can be held accountable. Maybe we do not need a "czar." We do need someone
with authority, responsibility, carrots, sticks and leadership working on water issues full time.

~ 7 ~
Robbie Hewitt, Smyrna
Being a real estate agent who once lived/worked in San Diego, CA you should look at how the
county there addresses the retrofitting of low flow water fixtures at the change of ownership. I
know my industry will fight this as they already have but let them. It needs to be mandated that at
the change of ownership, every residential property will be retrofitted with lowflow fixtures. I
suggest the seller be responsible for doing so. This way buyers will not let sellers off the hook
for something the law requires and they perceive as a freebee. Every seller will comply by using
the cheapest product they can but experience in San Diego proves buyers will cooperate with
sellers to pay any additional cost to get what they want in the way of fixtures. A rebate from the
counties or water systems will make the law more palatable.

Mandate all car washes recycle water.

Put outdoor water restrictions in place permanently, including those who use well water. Stop
the issuance of private well permits where public water is available in an effort to stop the
depletion of the water table and the gross mis-use of our water resource as it will no longer be a
free commodity for those who would put in wells.
Rick Gray
An editorial column in today's AJC regarding Georgia's water task force prompted me to ask a
few questions regarding Georgia's use of water for "agricultural purposes"........

I currently live on a private 28 acre lake on the headwaters of Lake Allatoona. Much to the
surprise of the homeowners on this lake, the Ga EPD, in the midst of our ongoing "water wars"
with Florida and Alabama, and deep into our recent Level 4 drought, issued an agricultural water
withdrawal permit allowing a golf club (with property along a portion of the lake) to withdrawal
millions of gallons of water from the lake each month (for the purpose of watering a 225 acre
golf course), this withdrawal causing the lake's water level to drop as much as 3 inches/day.
Needless to say, these water withdrawals result in the lake having no outflow for months at a
time, thus precluding any use of the water downstream, while the golf club has essentially free
use of this water, the vast majority of which is lost via evaporation or transpiration. Given this
situation, I would like to ask you to address the following questions:

How many such "agricultural" water withdrawal permits has the EPD issued (ie, permits for
recreational as opposed to for true agricultural water use)?
Why are they still issuing such permits?
How many gallons of water per year are these permittees withdrawing?
How many individuals or households in Georgia could this water support if it wasn't being used
to water golf courses, etc?
Why are these permittees being allowed to use "waters of the state" for free, thus having no
incentive for conservation, when we are threatened with ongoing and potentially ever worsening
water supply issues in this state?
Why are these permittees allowed to use this water essentially free of charge, while the cost of
water used for drinking, bathing, etc increases steadily, in part to promote conservation and
discourage excessive water use given our threatened water supply?
How does the issuance of these permits affect the thoughts and actions of federal judges and the
public officials of Alabama and Florida?

~ 8 ~
Why should our opponents in the "water wars" take us seriously when we have such little
concern about how we conserve the water we claim is so scarce and valuable?

Thank you for considering this matter. I look forward to your response.
Arlene D. Davis, RE/MAX Vidalia
I strongly urge this water task force to consider the following when making a decision to take to
the Governor regarding the water issues Georgia is currently facing. I strongly oppose anything
that would impact private property rights including but not limited to:
Inefficient point of sale government mandates such as retrofit at resale. This would place
an unnecessary burden on homeowners.
I oppose the public trust doctrine.
I promote a riparian water rights system and the water rights of property owners.
I support efforts to increase water supply levels by expediting the permitting and
construction of new water supply reservoirs and increasing the capacity of existing
reservoirs.
Lou Irby, Lou Irby Realty
As a REALTOR in the State of Georgia I am opposed to anything that places an unnecessary
burden on the property owners. We have enough burden already with taxes and other mandates
already in place. I hope you will please consider these factors when you make your
recommendations to the Governor.

No one should question the need for better conservation of Georgia's water supply...Punishing
property owners is NOT the answer. Our state and local governments are and have been
negligent in building and maintaining reservoirs to meet our needs when droughts occur. Enough
money is wasted by all government agencies to easily cover the cost of creating a workable
solution.

Governmental agencies never seem to understand that when an economic slow-down occurs that
the income of tax-payers is reduced -- yet elected officials look for higher taxes from the
"reduced income" taxpayer to keep their non-essential projects funded. They are also quick to
pass mandates for expensive updates and/or repairs for homeowners instead of using "common
sense" requests to work together to attain a solution. As a Realtor and homeowner I hope the
members of the Water Contingency Task Force will work diligently for a common sense solution
-- and consider the cost vs the impact on Georgia's citizens.
Octavio Perez, Dalton
Please consider this on your meeting November 23:
I supports your efforts on increase water supply levels by expediting the permits and construction
of new water supply reservoirs and/or increase the capacity of existing reservoirs.

I support the riparian water rights system as well as the water rights of property owners.

I support responsible market based conservation measures as conservation pricing and retrofit
incentives as rebates.

I oppose the public trust doctrine, and inefficient point-of-sale government mandates such as
retrofit at resale.

~ 9 ~
Sandi Green, 2008 President, Columbus Board of Realtors, Columbus, GA
As a realtor, I look at water issues not only as a resident myself but also as a representative of the
many, many Georgia residents that I have represented in my 30+ years as a realtor.

I emphatically oppose the following:
1) Retrofitting existing homes at resale
2) The Public Trust Doctrine

I support:
1) Responsible conservation measures (conservation pricing and retrofit incentives/rebates)
2) Riparian water rights system
3) Water rights of property owners
4) All efforts to increase water supply levels by encouraging permitting and construction of
new water supply reservoirs and the increasing of capacity of existing reservoirs.

I would greatly appreciate your efforts in eliminating the retrofitting and Public Trust Doctrine
issues and your support of responsible conservation measures, riparian water rights, rights of
property owners, and the addition/capacity of water supply reservoirs.

Thank you for your support.
Carol Moson, The Moson Group, RE/MAX Greater Atlanta
I am a REALTOR in Cobb County and would like to voice my opinion regarding topics before
the water task force.

Myself, along with GAR (Georgia Association of REALTORS) oppose inefficient point-of-
sale government mandates such as retrofit at resale as this is a burden on the already
struggling homeowner.
Myself along with GAR support responsible market based conservation measures such as
conservation pricing and retrofit incentives such as rebates.
Myself along with GAR support a riparian water rights system and the water rights of
property owners. This is absolutely critical.
Myself along with GAR oppose the public trust doctrine.
Myself along with GAR support efforts to increase water supply levels by expediting the
permitting and construction of new water supply reservoirs and increasing the capacity of
existing reservoirs.

We hope you take our voice seriously as it is crucial that these issues are properly addressed and
the rights of our citizens to own and enjoy real property are protected.
Jack Shanks
In today's market with resale portion being so difficult this requirement would place an expensive
and unnecessary cost for the Seller. The current resale market has prices of 2003 or 2004 market.
I think there are more efficient ways to save water.

~ 10 ~
Rosan Hall, Keller Williams Realty Atlanta North
As a Realtor of some 17+ experience, I can say without a doubt that placing this additional
burden on the market now is unconscionable. There are so many more ways to cure this problem
without hurting the housing industry just as it may and I say that conditionally, may be coming
out of a deep recession. Why not curb sprinkler systems using water that flows down gutters
because people do not take the proper time to adjust them.

What about fixing bad or aged city and county water pipes which break and cause huge amounts
of lost water as well as inconvenience to homeowners and businesses alike? Why not concentrate
on making sure that the new houses built must have low flow plumbing? If this is truly an effort
to fix the problem, why not offer incentives to make these changes?

Homeowners are already taking a huge hit. They are trying to sell houses which are not
appraising and then the underwriters are cramming down the prices further because the Atlanta
area is in a declining market. And, if we are in a declining market can you imagine what's
happening in the rest of Georgia.

The economy cannot sustain another hit. For goodness sake think of something worthwhile which
will help the housing market grow and not put additional burdens on Realtors who have been hit
so hard already.
Edwin Farmer, Water Optimizer http://WaterOptimizer.com
Optimizer is an intelligent irrigation controller which can operate as a standard time clock
controller as well as modes utilizing weather data or soil moisture sensors. The controller is also
capable of transmitting data including run time, soil moisture levels, etc, via the Water Optimizer
web site to the entity managing the system. I would very much appreciate you forwarding this
information to the task force staff and we would be happy to come to Atlanta to demonstrate the
systems capability. Tests from our installations around the country as well as tests conducted by
the University of Florida have shown water savings of up to 70% when using the moisture sensor
operation mode vs time clock controllers.

The Florida Legislature in the 2009 session passed legislation which allows intelligent controllers
utilizing soil moisture sensors and having reporting capability to be exempt from watering
restrictions which are in place over most of the state.

This technology allows users to conserve irrigation water and self report the usage to government
as opposed to government imposed time restrictions on irrigation with enforcement required to
verify compliance.
Chuck Jonaitis, Results realty Service
I am against mandated retrofit plumbing fixtures. I agree with the stand GAR has taken as listed
below. Feel free to contact me if you need further information or have any questions. Thank you
for your attention.

GAR opposes inefficient point-of-sale government mandates such as retrofit at resale
GAR supports responsible market based conservation measures such as conservation
pricing and retrofit incentives such as rebates.

~ 11 ~
GAR supports a riparian water rights system and the water rights of property owners.
GAR opposes the public trust doctrine.
GAR supports efforts to increase water supply levels by expediting the permitting and
reservoirs.
Peggy Desiderio, Keller Williams Realty Atlanta North
To whom it may concern,
As a member of the Georgia Association of Realtors and an active real estate agent in Georgia, I
oppose the proposal that homeowners be required to retrofit their homes with low flow toilets and
fixtures prior to resale of their homes.
Maggie Crowe, Perfect Choice Realty
To whom it may concern:

GAR Talking Points:
reservoirs.

I totally support the Georgia Association of Realtors talking points. My reasons are
housing, families are what this economy, society and nation rest upon. It is hard enough for hard
working Georgians to get into homes and requiring more mandates on homes makes it even
harder. Georgians believe in property rights and freedom of choice. Don't take away any of
these, but give incentives to go the way of water conservation. There are many ways to do it, but
not the way taking rights or freedom of choice away.
John Shea, President, Walton-Barrow Board Of Realtors
I am fully in support of GAR's position and am very pleased to be involved with an organization
such as this that will protect property owners and our Business.
Jackie West, Harry Norman, realtors, Clayton
The economy is in a severe money crunch. Home sales are struggling to get back on tract and for
an owner suddenly be slapped with the expense of retrofit there home at resale.

As a Realtor in Georgia I OPPOSE this inefficient point-of-sale government mandate. I
OPPOSE the public trust doctrine. GAR SUPPORT efforts to increase water supple levels by
expediting the permitting and construction of new water supply reservoirs and increasing the
capacity of existing reservoirs. GAR supports responsible market based conservation measures
such as conservation pricing & retrofit incentives such as rebates. GAR SUPPORTS a riparian
water rights system and the water rights of property owners.

~ 12 ~
Mark Burson
Please Consider:

There is an affect on changing water flow from waste water receptacles in residential housing.
Decreasing flow does not give adequate force or measure to clear lines into sewer and septic
systems. This measure will increase stoppage, and expense to homeowners who do not
understand the process. Those who do will double flush and increase water usage as a net effect.

There are more proficient measures that will facilitate the desired effect. Offering incentives and
rebates for conservation measures, planning to increase state water reservoir capacity, improved
measures for storm water reclamation, and seasonal conservation education and implementation
measures would be collectively more effective than forced retrofitting at resale of residential
housing units.
Lee Marlin, Realtor, Keller Williams Realty Atlanta North
To the Georgia Water Task Force:

To presume that Realtors can and should act as the unpaid Low Flow Toilet police whenever a
home is resold, presumes that we will spend our time surveying all the fixtures in / on a property
and accurately assess whether a particular toilet is low flow. Are Realtors equipped to do this?

I've been a Realtor for over 5 years and until recently had never sold a home where this was a
question. The property was located in DeKalb County. Fortunately, I was on-site with a home
inspector who did know what to look for and where to look for it. Policing and documenting that
homeowners are in compliance is a regulatory matter that is best left to people who have the
training to do it and are paid to do it - not Realtors.

There are quite a few other water conservancy approaches that bear more urgent scrutiny and
ultimately result in more water conservation, namely:
GAR opposes inefficient point-of-sale government mandates such as retrofit at resale.

Consequences: Yet another regulatory mandate that will be oppressive to voters who need to sell
their homes and will cause them to spend money on their homes prior to going on the market.
Realtors want to remove impediments that cause people to stall buying or selling property. They
also want to get our economy moving by getting the Georgia real estate industry moving.


Consequences: Water wasters should pay more when they create "too much" or unreasonable
demand for water and waste water treatment, at the expense of everyone else. This should affect
both homeowners and businesses.


Consequences: We want to encourage people who want to own properties that have water
resources to take care of them so that everyone benefits from them.

~ 13 ~
reservoirs.

Consequences: Our past severe drought showed that our communities and the State of Georgia
as a whole had been lax in providing adequate capacity to store the water that our citizens and
industries need. As a result, we suffered through several years of drought and severe drought.
As budget permits, our legislators should be planning how we can add new reservoirs and new
capacity to the statewide systems.
Sandra Queen, Metro Brokers, GMAC Real Estate
To Whom It May Concern:

I am against this requirement! It will in effect shut down all sales of older homes!

Most people will not be able to afford to do all that is required to sell their house. Since the
economy is in a bad place now, I would think that you would not want to do anything to further
stall it.

This also intrudes on private property homeowner's rights!

If this is passed, you are effectively telling private property owners that they cannot sell their
property without government invasion.

This is totally unacceptable!

I would not be able to sell my condo, and condo sales are in the toilet anyway, why make it
worse?

Realtors provide a stimulus to the economy, by sales and when someone buys a new home, they
do go out and buy furnishings, etc., further providing sales!

Our economy needs all the help it can get right now, lets not further cripple it by cutting down on
the number of homes that can be sold and making it more difficult for realtors to sell!
Joan Boudreau, Keller Williams Realty Duluth,

We have received the following email from GAR:

Members of the task force have informed GAR that all options are on the table including an
unfunded government mandate that all homes in Georgia be retrofit with low flow plumbing
fixtures prior to resale.

I am definitely opposed to such a mandate. Do we not have a hard enough time selling homes
these days? Prices are down 30%, unemployment is sky high, and now you want to put more
restrictions on the home owner, specifically, the home seller? Do you know how many people

~ 14 ~
have to sell their homes (short sales, foreclosures, etc)? That means that cant even pay their
mortgage let alone replace their toilets before they can sell?

The timing is not good for this. I also agree that it intervenes with our personal property rights.
Mark Teytel, Realty 1st
Please consider the following positions Mark Teytel and Realty 1st developed on the issues
tackled by your water task force:
I oppose inefficient point-of-sale government mandates such as retrofit at resale
I support responsible market based conservation measures such as conservation pricing and
retrofit incentives such as rebates.
I support a riparian water rights system and the water rights of property owners.
reservoirs.

My position is also supported by the Georgia Association of Realtors.
Dale Herdandez, Metro Brokers/GMAC Real Estate

As a professional Realtor in the State of Georgia, I am dismayed at the task forces
consideration of an unfunded government mandate that all homes in Georgia be retrofitted with
low flow plumbing fixtures prior to resale.

The real estate industry has had it hard enough these past two years!

If this plumbing retrofit is required, this will further depress the real estate industry and will be a
hardship on everyone not just buyers, sellers and realtors! I think we have all seen that as real
estate goes, so follows the economy!

I beg you to please consider the following alternative measures for water conservation, which I
whole-heartedly support:
1. Responsible market-based conservation measures such as conservation pricing and retrofit
incentives such as rebates.
2. Efforts to increase water supply levels by expediting the permitting and construction of new
water supply reservoirs and increasing the capacity of existing reservoirs.

Please further note that as a member of the Georgia Association of Realtors:

Thank you for your thorough consideration of the effects of your recommendations on the real
estate industry and Georgias economic health in general.
Elizabeth Chamberlin, Harry Norman Realtors, Peachtree City,
I am strongly opposed to any government mandate to retrofit all homes for sale with low flow
devices.

~ 15 ~
Jim Smith, Willingham Loan & Realty Co, Macon
I am an active member of the Georgia Association of Realtors.

I am writing you to voice my support for the position of GAR as follows:
GAR opposes inefficient point of sale government mandates such as retrofit at resale
GAR supports retrofit incentives such as rebates.
reservoirs.

When I was a young man there were government incentives to encourage pond building and
water conservation. Those programs worked well and thousands of ponds were built that
improved the quantity and quality of water in Georgia.

Please consider policies that will encourage conservation and water management in lieu of
policies that will unnecessarily penalize property owners.

Please consider our concerns when making water policy for our State.
Jack Finn, Prudential GA Realty
Please do not do anything that will have a negative impact on the real-estate market as the Gov
proposed bill would do.

Regarding re tooling homes that are being sold to adjust the water presser.
Nan Coppenrath, Realtor
I am opposed to any change in water policy that would negatively impact private property rights,
especially any point of sale mandate such as required retrofit at resale.

Our Georgia homeowners are suffering enough with the loss of home value (32% in Cherokee
County), and a law requiring them to spend more money, which a lot of them dont have, before
they can sell to the one Buyer who made a passable offer, is inhumane.

Please consider the carrot approach first: Offer incentives to use low-flow fixtures, discounts on
the labor and parts, or a tax credit.

Or, save water another way, by mandating that all new building will not be allowed underground
irrigation.
Sherri Schaefer, Realtor
I oppose inefficient point-of-sale government mandates such as retrofit at resale
I support responsible market based conservation measures such as conservation pricing and

~ 16 ~
reservoirs.
W Richard Merritt, Realtor
Georgia has plenty of water in Lake Lanier and it was built specifically to give Atlanta more
water.

This is a state's right issue and our governor should tell the Feds that we will govern our own
water problems. We don't need their help.
Paul Christen, Alpharetta
Based conservation measures such as conservation pricing and retrofit incentives such as rebates.
I supports a riparian water rights system and the water rights of property owners I oppose the
public trust doctrine. I support efforts to increase water supply levels by expediting the
permitting and construction of new water supply reservoirs and increasing the capacity of
existing reservoirs.
Doreen Evans, Realtor
As a Georgia Realtor, I oppose mandating that property owners be required to retrofit low
plumbing fixtures at resale. The current economic climate and it's impact on the housing industry
places an extra burden on homeowners trying to sell in a bad market. With many homeowners
being forced to sell their properties below market value, this would place our sellers under unfair
financial stress. I support water conservation. However, we must come up with other alternatives
that place less financial burden on property owners.
Cynthia Cromartie, Registered Appraiser, Peachtree City
I am in full agreement with the following points:
reservoirs.
Mike Robinson, Realtor, Peachtree City
I am OPPOSED to any mandatory government requirement regarding upgrading of water fixtures
in homes prior to their sale. I OPPOSE restrictions on property right of Georgia Homeowners.
Carol Link, Realtor
I have thought about this and know how very necessary water is to our very lives. It would seem
water costs will continue to rise. Non low flow fixtures will, in the future, cost the home owner
more that it would if they change now, using tax credits. And, we would save our precious water.

I do think we need to have a way for the cost to be adjusted at the closing table, if there is going
to be cash to the seller, so they won't have to pay up front. If no cash to the seller then we have a

~ 17 ~
hardship situation and adjustments need to be available for that. It would be something that
needs to be addressed with information obtained from net to seller upon receipt of a contract.

I think the safest way to protect everyone getting paid would be to allow it to survive the closing
and escrow funds at the closing to be paid to the vendor of choice. The closing attorney then
releases the money only after a before and after picture, along with the receipt are presented.
Susan West, Realtor
Water Task Force:
As a Realtor here in the Metro Atlanta area, I in very involved in supporting the rights of private
property ownership. I want what is best for not only my Clients , but as well, the environment.

I DO OPPOSE inefficient pointofsale government mandates such as retrofit at resale! This will
hinder the sale of houses!
I DO SUPPORT responsible market based conservation measures such as conservation pricing
and retrofit incentives such as rebates. Offering the consumers rebates to get their house up to
standards is a more efficient and cost effective way to promote water conservation.

I, as a Realtor oppose the public trust doctrine and I support a Riparian water right system and the
water rights of property owners. I also support efforts to increase water supply levels by
expediting the permitting and construction of new water supply reservoirs and increasing the
capacity of existing reservoirs.

I hope this information will be reviewed in the decision by Governor Sonny Perdue.
Joe Maltese
I wanted to share some developing information about what might be a significant existing water
resource that is being overlooked in the ACF basin.

As you are aware, GA Power operates 3 good sized lakes in the middle Chattahoochee region.
Here-to- for many had been working under the premise that these lakes carried a run of the
river designation. While GA Power may have been able to convince FERC and others that this
is how these lake should be operated, their capabilities are far different. There is significant
storage in these 3 significant lakes (Bartletts Ferry/Lake Harding, Lake Oliver, and Goat Rock).

While GA Power owns the complexes that form these lakes, as you know the waters in them is
Federal water or water of the United States. We recently conducted an assessment of what
these lakes could do to ease stress either to the north for water supply, or downstream for flow
augmentation to reduce stress on West Point and Lanier. What we found was quite surprising.
Our engineers revealed that Lake Harding alone held 60,000 acre feet of water (equivalent to
almost 3 feet of water in West Point or about 2 feet in Lanier) that could be put in play and
utilized to satisfy needs in the basin upstream for water supply- or downstream for flow
augmentation. Our engineers think that hydro operations could continue even while utilizing this
storage, but we agree some degree of hydro generation reliability would be the impact.

But we live in a time when ALL trade offs must be explored. As we explore the transfer of water
from many existing lakes around the state, logic would dictate that we explore the use of these
lakes of the GA Power Mid Chatt complex with some intensity. It would also seem logical that
water withdrawal from these GA Power lakes would be far more easy than withdrawing from

~ 18 ~
Corps lakes. In fact I think I am correct that Opelika and Valley AL already make use of these
lakes for water supply with rather substantial withdrawals.

I think this points to the fact that we should explore all existing impoundments- including all the
FERC regulated lakes of the Chattahoochee and the Flint and not focus too closely on existing
Corps lakes that are already the center of so much attention on the legal front.
With regards to this concept- timing is everything. Coincidently Bartletts Ferry /Lake Harding
is just getting started in its relicensing process with FERC and this is the proper time for this
dialogue with regards to that project.
Joyce Small, Realtor
I am adamantly against government adding one more expense to home owners. I know that these
toilets take twice the water to do the same job as the present ones. Because of the minuscule
amount of water in them it takes two or three flushes to do the job properly, so how pray tell are
you saving anything. You are just placing homeowners with another needless and costly burden.
Bill Brannen, Associate Broker
Please support our realtors concerns in this matter.

Thank you
Jenny Hoffner, American Rivers
On behalf of American Rivers, thank you for the opportunity to provide the Task Force with our
recommendations and input to help further inform your work as you develop a proposal to
address the potential gap in supply that would exist should Judge Magnusons ruling go into
effect in July 2012.

We provide these recommendations in addition to the Georgia Water Coalition comments
submitted on November 6, 2009 which we fully support and helped to formulate. These
recommendations serve to elaborate and highlight particular points and complement the specific
policy recommendations included in the Georgia Water Coalition document.

Attached you will find American Rivers' recommendations, the Georgia Water Coalition
recommendations as well as American Rivers' Hidden Reservoir report.

Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have questions. We look forward to continuing our
dialogue as the Task Force develops its proposal.
John Farra, Johns Creek
Flying to Chicago and Minneapolis on two recent trips brought to my mind some geographical
considerations for dealing with North Georgias water crisis on a long term basis. Stating the
obvious, the Chattahoochee is a mere creek (at least up stream from the Alabama border)
compared to many rivers in the eastern U.S. Yet there are two major rivers within 50 to 100
miles of the Chattahoochee watershed that could (and should) be accessible to balance and reflect
the water needs of the entire region in these modern times one is the Tennessee River and the
other is the Savannah River.

The Tennessee is especially capable of serving this purpose. Except for the Ohio, the Tennessee
is the largest river basin in the eastern U.S. Down stream from Chattanooga the only population

~ 19 ~
centers the river serves in Alabama are Huntsville, Decatur and Florence and there are NO
population centers in Tennessee or Kentucky that are served.

Below Chattanooga, I believe it is a certainty that the volume of water flow on the Tennessee far
exceeds the drinking water, power generation and navigation requirements at present and beyond
the foreseeable future.

After crossing into Alabama, the river flows 60 miles southwest to Guntersville before going due
west and back north through Tennessee and Kentucky. This proximity allows for the
construction of a pipeline of approximately 100 miles that could end in the Chattahoochee above
West Point Lake. The pipeline would also cross two river basins Coosa and Tallapoosa - that
are contentious problems with Alabama. So this pipeline could supplement water flow in the
three river basins that are the reason for the water wars between Georgia, Alabama and Florida.

Such a pipeline solution should then allow Georgia to solve its own water problems by building
new lakes and reservoirs, reducing withdrawals from Lanier and Allatoona and give reasonable
time for water conservation measures to be effective in the long term.

Some related thoughts.
Isnt Los Angeles main water source a large and longer pipeline from Lake Meade (fed by
the Colorado river) in Nevada.
Since congressional earmarks/pork will never go away, couldnt our Georgia and Alabama
congressman get some major funds to help pay the cost of a pipeline.
A 40 to 50 mile pipeline from Lake Hartwell can reach Lake Lanier.
How does the cost of land acquisition and lake construction compare to the cost of running
a pipeline?

Thanks for your consideration,
Ronnie Burrell, Realtor
While I support changes, I do not support moves that will hurt home sales, such as, point of sale
retrofit and public trust doctrine.
Christine Topham, Realtor
As an active Realtor in my community, I fully agree with GARS position on the Water Task
Force opposition to any change in water policy that would negatively impact private property
rights, as well as our opposition to point of sale mandates such as retrofit at resale.

GAR opposes inefficient pointofsale government mandates such as retrofit at resale
reservoirs.

~ 20 ~
Terry Moore, Realtor, Woodstock
I would like you to seriously consider any change in water policy that would negatively impact
private property rights as well as point of sale mandates such as retrofit at resale. It was made
clear I am a REALTORS and we are pro-conservation and that we fully support common sense
market based conservation measures such as incentives and rebates that do not interfere with
property rights or free enterprise.

GAR opposes inefficient point-of-sale government mandates such as retrofit at resale.
GAR supports responsible market based conservation measures such as conservation pricing and
construction of new water supply reservoirs and increasing the capacity of existing reservoirs.

Please consider carefully any change that will negatively affect our property rights.
Jim Waddell, Realtor
Please do not force sellers to retrofit plumbing to low flow toilets prior to resale. It does not
work to save water.

People have to flush twice and actually use more water, not less.

This unfunded requirement will further hurt the housing market.
Alec Poitevint, Former Federal Commissioner ACF & ACT Water Compacts Member
Ga Water Task Force
Ground Water via wells remain the best option with the shortest time for development also
returned treated water from more wells should be able to used for credits for increased surface
water withdrawals.

Thus win win
Dick Morrow, Mayor, City of Griffin
Water Task Force.

I applaud the creative work accomplished to arrive at the many possible solutions to the North
Metro (Lake Lanier) water crisis. What truly perplexes me, tho, is why we in the surrounding
counties were never queried as to our water availability and interest in supplying the Atlanta
market.

To our consternation, the plan calls for potential deep wells to be drilled in Spalding County but
does not even consider our present water surplus. This is a plan to spend mega millions on 6
MGD and ignores our present excess capacity.

FYI the City of Griffin owns TWO reservoirs - both operational. One, Heads Creek Reservoir, is
old and has diminished capacity. Two, Still Branch Reservoir, is new and state of the art. In
total we have a present withdrawal permit for 26.2 MGD. Today our total usage is only 8.2

~ 21 ~
MGD in winter and 12 MGD in summer. We have excess water of at least 13 MGD all year
around.

We want to sell that water. In fact, we NEED to sell more water to pay our bond indebtedness for
the new reservoir and water plant. Why not let us supply the N. Metro market with existing
reservoir and plant capacity? Why spend money on new capacity when it already exists?

In addition, with some new capital investment, our old Heads Creek Reservoir could be
rehabilitated and have the capability of greater storage and additional supply.

I believe the Task Force has overlooked one key solution. Take down the political wall around
the Atlanta area market and let those of us outside supply the need. The systems should be
interconnected and let those with excess freely sell to those with inadequate supply. This is
essentially a free market solution with water being sold and traded across political boundaries and
political agendas.

We need to sell water and N. Metro needs to buy water. Let's open up the process.

BTW, why would we want to allow you to drill into and take our groundwater when we have
water currently available?

Incidentally, Coweta County also has excess water and would be interested in the same system as
Griffin. Please don't ignore the potential providers outside the Metro area.
Brad Currey
I have responded to the survey. There is one important issue not addressed. All of our work thus
far is based on data of questionable accuracy and value.

The State needs to mandate collection, reporting, and compilation of data from every water utility
using AWWA standards. Every use needs to be metered down to each fire hydrant. We must
keep score. Only then can we determine true water loss and begin to control and eliminate loss
from leaks and other issues.

The projection of future water needs also needs a careful look. An independent resource needs to
look at the data on future needs for reasonableness and consistency. Only then can we be sure
that we are preparing for the future and not wasting capital in implementing all of these
expensive, time consuming measures included in the survey.

Finally, our report needs to focus on the critical matter that all of us all over the state will pay
more for less water, a scarce resource, in the years to come. The infrastructure needs of our
utilities do not go down when people use less water, but utility revenues do go down. The public
and government agencies need to be prepared for reality!

~ 22 ~
Steve Williams, BUILDINGGREENER LLC
After reading the last news release form the Governors Water Task Force, I thought I would see
if I could convince the task force at least to consider rainwater harvesting if not recommending it.

As most of you do not realize rainwater harvesting systems (RHS) could quickly and relatively
inexpensively help reduce our dependency on the Chattahoochee and help with stormwater
problems. With incentives and education non-potable water usage could be drastically reduced.
By promoting it to commercial users the quick ROI for many applications could be realizes.

Please consider commenting before the State decides on one of the more expensive and/or
environmentally damaging options.

Below is my brief critique of your solutions. I would be more then happy to address them in
person.

Solution: Build more reservoirs or expand current reservoirs.
Result: Very expensive, takes years of permitting, lots of money, as well as an inefficient way to
store water due to seepage and evaporation. Then there are the environmental issues of destroying
our natural ecosystem.

Solution: Desalinization plants on the coast and pump the water to Atlanta.
Result: The cost of desalination plant and the amount of energy to produce water is quite
expensive. Costs for plants run from $100 million to over $ 1 billion depending on size. The
environmental impact can be intensive, because of the brine disposal. Finally, the cost to pump
millions of gallons 1000 vertical feet plus 250 miles. Wow. The California Energy Commission
conducted a study in 2007 that found that water-related energy use consumes about 19 percent of
the states electricity.

Solution: Piping water from the Savannah River.
Result: Apparently there is a down hill root from the Savannah River to Atlanta, but that will
take a decade or two to plan, then build and then we will be at war with another state.

Solution: Conservation
Result: Great idea. Everyone supports it, but will the legislators and the governor provide the
incentives, education and promotion needed? I doubt it. The North Metro GA Update water plan
only set moderate efficiency goals.

Solution: Rainwater Harvesting
Result: This is an efficient and relatively inexpensive way to collect water, especially for non-
potable water. Such as for irrigation and commercial applications. The water collected is very
clean and free of minerals. Once the water is stored there is virtually no loss from the storage
container. And the water can be stored for months. The amount of energy saved do to the close
proximity of the water source to its need should be significant. Rainwater Harvesting is also a
good way to help with stormwater management.

~ 23 ~
With almost 50 inches of rain a year in the Metro Atlanta area a modest 2500 square foot 1 story
house can realistically capture about the 70,000 gallons of water per year. This could provide all
the water needs for 2 people for a year. Why are we letting it go down the drain?

Solution: Green Infrastructure
Result: Green infrastructure is a passive and natural way to harvest water. The water is allowed
to percolate into the ground replenishing the ground water which keeps the surface water level
higher. This means more water for everyone. By mimicking and restoring the natural water
cycle grey (concrete) infrastructure costs are reduced. Installation and maintenance tends to be
significantly less the traditional grey infrastructure.
Diane Johnson
I would like to make a recommendation for our water issue. Please consider utilizing Rainwater
Harvesting Catchments Systems to be used for non-potable water...washing clothes, flushing
toilets, and irrigation. Eventually, there will be enough clarifying that we will be able to utilize
rainwater for drinking water too. (It's being used in other places now.)

By using Rainwater catchment systems, we would save on overall water usage (draw from
reservoirs)as well a mitigate stormwater runoff (flooding). THIS IS a viable solution in
conjunction to other solutions of GOING GREEN. Please consider this option. I am a Rainwater
Catchment Systems Professional and belong to an upstart organization (ARCSA)

The national group is out of Austin, TX. Please look it up!!! I am also active in the SE-ARCSA
group...this group is reforming and is looking forward to develop NEW JOBS in GA. This is one
avenue for that goal.

The SEARCSA has been instrumental in working with UGA in developing new plumbing codes
for rainwater usage.

Please consider this as a highly VIABLE option. You WILL be convinced of the merits of
rainwater usage once you speak with the leaders in this industry.

As a landscape architect and home owner, I know the problems with stormwater runoff and
flooding. I know what causes it and I know the methods to mitigate it. Claiming rainwater is a
good co-solution.

As a citizen of GA, I am very worried about our drinking water problems (and general
congestion). I feel certain there will be no further development in Atlanta if we have no water to
drink!!! People will be moving out of the areas where water is a problem. I've considered
moving based on lack of work, traffic congestion...and now the lack of water.

We should be building all things 'green' and utilizing FREE water and putting people to work in a
new 'green' industry is a very good and feasible solution.

I hope that you will consider this option seriously.

~ 24 ~
Candace Balega
To whom this concerns:

My husband and I own a 37,000 square foot shopping center. That gives us a tremendous area to
capture rain water in large volumes ,which we do. We have our roof water drained to cisterns
that pump it through our drip irrigation system. We choose this over city water that would be
very costly in many ways. The other option of drilling a well is also costly in our west GA
location and would use additional electricity. We also took up 1/3 of the asphalt and planted
trees when we purchased the property to help eliminate runoff. If there were incentives for
owners to add small economically sustainable features like this maybe more people would invest
the money to help make a difference.
Vince Zappiam , member GWC, Suwanee,
Please use conservation to heavily weigh decisions on how best to provide water for the future of
Georgia.

Furthermore, please consider wisely the data provided by groups such as the GWC to base such
decisions.

The economic and environmental burden of engineered solutions will further hinder generations
of Georgians with problems created today. Such solutions are likely to be just another bandaid
approach to a situation that requires extensive conservation. And, after all, there is a finite
number of rivers and streams to damup and aquifers to plunder.
Mark Brown, Rain Catchers
I am writing to offer a solid solution to the impending water crisis in GA. I am writing as a
concerned citizen and an expert in the field of rainwater harvesting. Several years ago I chose
Rainwater Harvesting as a new career path. As an already successful entrepreneur in another
industry I made this choice, because it was obvious to me that water was fast becoming a major
issue in our state as well as around the world. In my endeavor to become an expert, I sought out
the authorities in the field, and spent much time researching and learning from these experts. I
also looked for knowledge from leading authorities on water from around the world, and through
this journey I found that there are a few points on which all are in agreement. Water is a finite
resource and the rate of demand on this finite resource is growing quicker than the rate of
population growth itself. We know this all too well in GA.

The question that perplexes all who understand rainwater harvesting is, why is our state not
seriously considering this as a viable solution? What other single solution can provide a clean
source of water, save energy, and greatly reduce stormwater runoff and the resulting pollution
simultaneously? Throughout my business career I have always found that numbers speak louder
than words, so I will offer up a simple example of an existing system we have designed and
installed here in Atlanta:

Ex. Home with 1500 square ft of roof space that is currently using rainwater for nonpotable
water uses inside of home and outside for irrigation.

1500 sq ft x . 62 gallons per inch of rainfall x . 95 collection efficiency = 883 gallons per 1 inch
of rainfall

~ 25 ~
883 gallons x 52 avg annual rainfall = 45,916 gallons collected per year
3 person family has average water use of 60,225 gallons/yr without water saving fixtures (leaks
are not considered in this #)
36,135 gallons of this represents nonpotable use

Potential Rainfall Supply = 45,916 gals/yr
NonPotable Demand = 36,135 gals/yr Total Demand = 60,225 gals/yr
Potential Energy Savings = 65 KWh/yr
Potential Stormwater Runoff Reduction = 45,916 gals/yr

It is a simple equation. Rainwater supplied is greater than nonpotable demand. The numbers are
even more compelling when considering commercial, industrial, and institutional applications
where more water can be collected and more water is typically used.

Ex. Industrial plant with 200,000 square ft of roof space that will be using rainwater for cooling
towers
200,000 sq ft x . 62 gallons per inch of rainfall x . 95 collection efficiency = 117,800 gallons per
1 inch of rainfall
117,800 gallons x 52 avg annual rainfall = 6,125,600 gallons collected per year
3 cooling towers use total of 15,000 gallons per day or 5,460,000 gallons per year
Potential Supply = 6,125,600 gals/yr
Demand = 5,460,000 gals/yr
Potential Energy Savings = 9188 KWh/yr
Potential Stormwater Runoff Reduction = 6,125,600 gals/yr

Obviously cost is an important factor in determining viable solutions for the impending water
crisis. The solutions offered up thus far are quite expensive just as rainwater harvesting is
expensive, however rainwater harvesting offers the end user a return on investment rather than
continuing price increases down the road. The typical industrial or institutional application will
receive a payback of 1 to 5 years on a rainwater harvesting system. Residential systems where
water is used inside the home typically produce a payback of 510 years and when amortized
over 30 years are normally cash flow positive or at minimum break even as compared to savings
on a monthly water bill in Atlanta. As water prices continue to increase, the time it takes to pay
for the systems will continue to shorten.

Because rainwater harvesting is relatively new to GA I would like to take a moment to dispel a
few myths:
1. Rainwater harvesting systems are nothing more than rain barrels connected to downspouts.
Most people picture a rain barrel when rainwater harvesting is mentioned. While rain
barrels are commonly used by gardeners for hand watering plants, rainwater harvesting
systems can be used for much more including nonpotable water uses such as flushing
toilets, laundry, irrigation, building and vehicle washing, fire suppression, and many other
things. They are also used for a potable water source where municipal or well water is not
a viable option.
2. Rainwater harvesting systems are a new invention in response to the recent droughts the US
has been experiencing. It has been around for 1000s of years. Technology has advanced
over the years and many of todays systems are much more complex.

~ 26 ~
3. Rainwater harvesting systems are only good when there is plentiful rain, not in times of
drought. Drought is a shortage not an absence of rainfall. Also, rainfall can be collected
during rainy seasons and stored for use in drier seasons when demand is typically higher.
4. Rainwater contains many contaminants that are harmful to humans and animals. Rainwater
harvesting systems will produce very healthy water if properly designed. German scientists
figured this out many years ago, as Germany has been using rainwater harvesting for over
30 years, and it is required on all new construction.
5. Rainwater harvesting tanks need to be emptied and disinfected every year to keep the water
healthy. This is not required in a properly designed rainwater harvesting system. If proper
filtration and other important steps are used, the tanks will never require cleaning.
6. Rainwater is another word for greywater. These are two very different things. Rainwater
falls from the sky. Greywater is water that has been collected from sinks and washing
machines. Collection, treatment, storage, and regulation are very different between
greywater and rainwater.

Rainwater Harvesting is now being utilized in many countries around the world and is required to
be installed during new construction in places like Germany, Australia, South Africa, Paris,
United Kingdom, and recently Tuscon, AZ. Some of these places have similar rainfall to GA,
and some of them receive much less rainfall than we do, but all of these places have one thing in
common. Water supply is a problem for one reason or another in each of these places, just as it is
here in GA.

Many states including GA have adopted a rainwater harvesting code in anticipation of this
solution becoming more popular. Rainwater Harvesting systems have already been installed in
government buildings, schools, universities, fire stations, nonprofit organizations, industrial
plants, office buildings, and homes all across the United States.

I believe the time has come for GA to officially adopt Rainwater Harvesting as a solution to its
impending water crisis. Listed below is a basic outline of how this can be done:
1. Tax Incentives and rebates for retrofitting of existing homes and businesses with Rainwater
Harvesting Systems
2. Mandate for installation of Rainwater Harvesting Systems on all new construction projects
over 400 sq. ft.
3. Statewide education program for general public, governmental agencies, and private sector
business
4. Retrofitting of qualifying governmental facilities with Rainwater Harvesting Systems

I have heard many options being tossed around as solutions to the water crisis. While recently
attending the GA Environmental Conference I continually heard terms like desalination, aquifer
recharge, and pipeline (from wherever).

The common thread with the solutions being discussed is that they are all very expensive and
most importantly they all have an expiration date. They are all temporary solutions to get us
through another 5 to 50 years based on population growth charts. Rainwater Harvesting is a
permanent solution that decentralizes the water supply and places personal responsibility on our
population to use this finite resource wisely. Along with water conservation it can and should
play an important role in solving our impending water crisis.

~ 27 ~
Joe Clark, RainbankUSA
GA Water Task Force,

Please find attached a letter in support of Rainwater Catchment Systems (Rain Harvesting), and
supporting reasons. Please add Rain Harvesting to the list of options for GA, and especially the
Atlanta Metro area.
Frank Carl, Savannah Riverkeeper, Inc
Re: November 23, 2009 Report from the Task Force

Given the Governors assigned timeline for the task force we can understand the accelerated
schedule for providing information. Unfortunately, that accelerated schedule will inevitably lead
to errors in the final product. We wish to take this opportunity to provide some input to minimize
the errors and political fallout that are bound to happen with such an accelerated schedule.
Maybe it should be impressed upon the Governor as the old saying goes that failure to plan on
your part does not constitute an emergency on my part.

At any rate we recognize that the Governor is simply providing himself with some alternatives
that he should have provided himself much earlier instead of relying totally on winning the legal
option. Unfortunately, taking a negotiated option off the table as a potential solution to the
problem is a mistake. It would be very informative if we could compare the supply volumes and
costs of a negotiated use of Lanier to the other options being considered. At this point we can
only assume that the negotiated option would provide more water more cheaply than any other
option except conservation. But of course that option cannot be evaluated in the current context
because the Governor has taken it off the table.

It is also obvious that the task force has been tasked to consider only the economic drivers
involved and to ignore the need for water for the health and welfare of the people of Georgia.
Indeed, that priority has been prominent in the water planning process from the beginning back in
2005 when the mission statement put the economy ahead of the health and welfare of the people
of Georgia. The mission statement for the Water Council states, "Georgia manages water
resources in a sustainable manner to support the states economy, to protect public health and
natural systems, and to enhance the quality of life for all citizens. " We need to get our priorities
straight, starting now. We should use water to support the economy, but lets make sure that it is
not at the expense of the people.

Maybe it is time to stop feeding the ravenous growth machine of the metro area, the growth that
keeps developers happy but saddles the people of the metro area with sprawl, transportation
issues, bad air, higher taxes, and a myriad of land use and water quality problems. Maybe it is
time to allow the development in the metro area to run up against its natural constraints, a finite
water supply and a 90 minute commute. Maybe its time to allow development to follow the
resources instead of commandeering the resources of others to allow us to continue to play the
same old game, growing metro Atlanta.

The Task Force has made its conference with the Georgia Water Coalition a prominent part of its
November 23 report, leaving the impression that the input of conservation groups had been
included in the report.

~ 28 ~
Unfortunately, the report did not use the information provided by the Georgia Water Coalition in
its report and the inclusion of the GWC in the Task Force report seems to be just window
dressing. In fact, the GWC has calculated that the water saved by earnest conservation efforts in
the metro district (and some already exist) would be much greater than the 35 MGD used in the
Task Force report. Indeed, the GWC indicates that a combination of conservation and good faith
negotiation with Alabama and Florida could easily produce enough water for current needs in the
metro district. The inflated predictions of future needs used by the Task Force should be brought
into perspective by the constraints mentioned in the previous paragraph. The growth industry
needs to branch out and follow the resources. The current study should be used not only to find
other sources of water but to understand the limits of growth in the metro area. The information
the Task Force is generating can help us do that.

With the possible exception of West Point Lake the control options mentioned (Lake Burton,
Lake Hartwell and the Tennessee River) would essentially be stealing someone elses water. And
taking water from West Point Lake would re-open the same can of worms that the Task Force is
trying to close. It would involve negotiations with Alabama and Florida.

Taking water from Lake Burton would likely involve negotiations with the Savannah/Upper
Ogeechee Water Planning Council and they just passed (unanimously) a resolution to ban
interbasin transfers. While the infrastructure for transferring the water may be relatively cheap,
in this case the water itself may end up being politically expensive. In addition, it appears that
currently a transfer from Lake Burton to the Chattahoochee would be illegal. Taking water from
Lake Hartwell and transferring it into the North Georgia Metro District would also be illegal
within Georgia, but more importantly might be challenged by South Carolina and by Georgia
cities downstream (Augusta and Savannah).

Taking water from the Tennessee River is fraught with a myriad of problems, least of which is
the expense. First, we do not think that it will matter much if the state line is successfully
challenged to gain access to the river. Tennessee River water is highly allocated to a variety of
uses downstream and downstream includes AL, TN, KY, IL, MO, AR, MS, and LA. Now, that is
a lawsuit. While it may be possible to physically control water from the four sources under the
control option, it may be much more difficult to legally control that water. We advise you to
consider these comments when prioritizing the control options for the Governor. In fact, our
advice would be to forget the control options. They are not really options.

We know that the Governor is partial to building reservoirs to capture water that is available in
times of excess rainfall to be used in times of drought. While this mechanism can provide water
to a water-starved city, there are major disadvantages to building reservoirs. First, the cheapest
mechanism for building a reservoir is to dam a stream. Creating a reservoir where a stream once
flowed completely changes not only the aquatic ecosystem but also the terrestrial ecosystem
surrounding the new reservoir. Re-equilibration of an ecosystem takes generations, maybe
centuries. These changes to nature should not be taken lightly. Second, there will be
considerable pressure from the growth industry to use these newly built reservoirs as real estate
amenities. I urge you to resist that pressure for two reasons. (1) Development on the shores of
these new reservoirs will cause water quality problems that will have to be treated before the
water can be used as a drinking water source. That treatment can become expensive. Indeed,
New York City calculated that it would be cheaper for them to buy the watershed in the Catskills
that supplies their drinking water than it was to treat the drinking water if they allowed

~ 29 ~
development on the shores of their reservoir. (2) Making the land around the reservoir available
for real estate development will eventually lead to pressure to manage the water resource as a real
estate resource. I you will be acquiring land to use for a reservoir for water supply, it would be
disingenuous to allow the growth industry to drive up the cost of the water supply while profiting
from development of land that was acquired for other reasons. And finally, if reservoirs are to be
built, we recommend dedicated off-stream reservoirs where water is pumped into the reservoir
during periods of excess and the reservoir does not interrupt the flow of an existing stream.

We wish you luck in providing a priority list for the Governor. We look forward to seeing that
list. And we appreciate the opportunity to comment on your November 23 report.
Somchay Chong
As a concern citizen of Georgia, our water problem had been a big issue. Per the governor
suggestion, I would like for you to consider an idea I was thinking of. Is it possible for us to just
make rain water collectors and just pour it down stream during drought season. This way we are
saving most of the rain water. We won't need to treat it at all but just pour it down stream when
Alabama and Florida need some water. Thank you for considering my idea, I hope we can figure
this out before the next drought.
Steve Williams BUILDINGGREENER LLC
I sent a message to you a few days ago to share some thoughts on other solutions not mentioned
in the news as considerations for GA. Please take the time to down load and review my
presentation: Finding Water Through Rain. This presentation has been given to a international, a
state and a local conference in the past year. It not only talks about the environmental impacts of
our current water management practices, but touches on the large amounts of water we lose every
time it rains. The statics are accurate on water and the cost overruns on big infrastructure
projects are usually the norm rather then the occasional outcome. Let's try a new approach and
keep think simple. I would love to share this in person, but time is running out.
Russ Jackson, Rain Harvest Systems
Since the release of the Water Contingency Planning Task Force Report there has been much
discussion by the Georgia rainwater harvesting community about the absence of rainwater
harvesting (RWH) as part of the viable solution to our water crisis. I would like to offer my
expertise on the topic to help educate the Task Force on the costs and savings potential rwh can
provide. I have been involved with the industry since 2001. My company, RainHarvest Systems
is the largest supplier of rainwater harvesting equipment in the world, and we are based here in
the Metro Atlanta Area.

Because of our position as a company I can offer a truly global perspective on our problem and
help us reach a solution.

Please let me know if you can afford me the opportunity to help educate the Task Force.
Randy Kauk Rain Harvest Systems
My name is Randy Kauk. I am the President and principal owner of RainHarvest Systems, a
Georgiabased North American distributor of rainwater collection systems based in Cumming,
GA. We operate a 10,000 square foot warehouse with rain harvesting lab, retail showroom and
ecommerce site devoted solely to the distribution and promotion of rainwater collection systems

~ 30 ~
in the US, Canada, Mexico, the Caribbean and Bahamas. We are the largest distributor of
rainwater collection systems in the US.

It was recently brought to my attention that the Water Contingency Planning Task Force is
working on a final report to the Governor with regard to the impending water shortage and
litigation issues surrounding Lake Lanier and associated basins.

I would like to make myself and my company available in any way possible to help promote
rainwater collection as a potential solution to the water shortage problems were encountering.
Georgias water issues present a great opportunity for us to economically resolve our own issues,
reduce our dependence on water from the Chattahoochee basin and take a leading role in the
rapidly growing rainwater collection industry. As a property owner on Lake Lanier, individual
member of the 1071 coalition, corporate member of the DNRs Partnership for a Sustainable
Georgia and founding members of the Southeast Rainwater Collection Systems Association, I
believe my company and I can make a valuable contribution to your efforts.

If there is anything we can do to assist the state of Georgia in solving our water shortage, please
dont hesitate to contact me or anyone in my company.
Chatham Environmental Forum
The following comments are a reflection of the Chatham Environmental Forums immediate
thoughts on the water resource management problems of North Georgia currently being studied
by the Governors Water Task Force. The full forum will take positions on these issues after the
results of that task force are made public. Please pass them along to the Task Force!

Opposed to:
Interbasin transfer of surface water, unless there is an opposite and equal amount of fully treated
effluent returned to the basin from which the withdrawal originated.

Any form of aquifer storage and recovery (ASR) in the upper or lower Floridan aquifer.
Desalinization of any kind, unless and until all environmental impacts are fully studied,
scientifically understood, and avoided or fully mitigated.

In favor of:
Water resource conservation, including:
Residential
Industrial
Municipal

Note: water conservation measures implemented in Chatham County since 1995 should be
carefully studied and used as a model. The 2005 Chatham County Comprehensive Water Supply
Management Plan which contains twentyeight strategies that were implemented to achieve a
reduction in domestic and commercial water usage from 169 gallons per capita per day in 1995 to
135 gallons per day per capita in 2005. A significant finding is that from the measures
implemented the County saw a 13.6 percent rise in population between 1990 and 2005 and an
overall 6 percent reduction in domestic and commercial water usage over the same period.

~ 31 ~
Maximum water reuse, through effective and environmentally sound treatment, and return of
water used to its original source.

Maximum efficient water use for all energy and industrial purposes.

Economic analysis of any proposed alternative to the water management issues of North Georgia
must not be limited to consideration of only engineering, construction, and operational costs.

These analyses should also include and account fully for all costs to the impacted areas
downstream, including: (a) limitations in supply and potential increases in costs to existing and
future water users, (b) loss of economic opportunity, (b) diminishment of property values, (c)
potential loss of tax revenues for local governments, (d) costs of quantifiable short and longterm
environmental impacts, (e) identification and inventory of other environmental impacts that may
not be easily quantifiable, such as aesthetic loss or negative effect on quality of life.

Regardless of what solutions are adopted, it is imperative that the full economic and
environmental costs be borne by the effected water consumers only, and not spread out to the
entire State of Georgia, or amortized so that consumers do not fully experience the real costs, and
have the fullest opportunity to enjoy the economic benefits of conservation.
John Bennett
I am assuming that the more aggressive Conservation measures would only apply to the metro
area and other parts of the State as necessary and would not be Statewide. Am I correct?
Bob Drew, Founder, EcoVie Environmental
Hello Task Force,
I commend you efforts and rigorous analysis through BCG. The problem is obviously complex
and breaking it down into a more objective set of problems can only help. I would like to offer
some solution alternatives which you may or may not be strongly considering, but which I
believe can have a true impact on metro Atlanta's water challenges regardless of the Lake Lanier
outcome.

You seem to be going down the path of building new reservoirs. While some of this may prove
necessary, I would advocate more small reservoir building in the form of rainwater collection
systems. For residences, this alternate water supply should range from about 3,000 to 10,000
gallons to replace all outdoor watering and to be considered for indoor use. For commercial
applications, the cistern size may be much larger.

Such systems are already proven to reduce residential use by well over 50% over and above any
conservation steps and in many cases can eliminate all municipal water use. Very different from
tiny 50 gallon rain barrels, rainwater collection systems provide a real impact on municipal water
demand. Typical water savings range from 50,000 to 100,000 gallons per home. Multiplied
across a meaningful percentage of metro Atlanta homes, impact can easily be 10-30 million
gallons per day and conceivably more. Coupled with an effective conservation policy, the impact
can be even more. By my estimates, rainwater collection can eliminate the need for at least some
of the planned reservoirs and can be implemented much faster and with less state and city funds
(see below).

~ 32 ~
Implementation will require support of your task force as well as state municipal governments.
Here are a few ideas for implementation:
1. If you have not already, I recommend to benchmark and collaborate with municipalities in
Australia where the water challenge pre-dates that of Atlanta and where rainwater
collection has been an integral part of the water management plan.
2. Consider using federal loan money to finance rainwater collection systems. Funds are
available which could be directed to private home owners and businesses as capital for
rainwater collection. With rates being offered at around 2.2% the finance charge of a
system is lower than the monthly water bill savings, making it a cash flow positive
incentive for investors and avoids the cost to local governments of incentives such as tax
rebates (which would be a challenge with current state and local budget crunches.
3. One alternative could be to implement alternative water sources only for outdoor watering.
Coupled with the incentive above, a ban on using municipal water for irrigation could have
a huge and sustainable impact on metro Atlanta municipal water usage
4. Compared to permitting for reservoirs and environmental impact, rainwater collection for
homes and businesses is straightforward. However, state code could be more streamlined
and clear to allow only certified rainwater system installers to do installations and to
specify requirements for potable and non-potable applications. At the same time, it should
be made easier for certified installers to obtain permits.

One final comment: I concur that conservation efforts can only take us so far, although your
numbers on outdoor water use appear understated in the recent presentation I saw. Most
estimates show outdoor water use accounts for over half of residential consumption. Switching
exclusively to alternate water supplies for this purpose would have a much greater impact on
municipal water usage than the outdoor watering ban the last few years.

I am founder of an Atlanta local rainwater collection business (www.ecovieenvironmental.com)
and am a member of ARCSA (American Rainwater Collection Systems Association). I serve as
the EPA liaison for the organization.

I hope that you find at least some of these comments useful and I would like to be of service in
any way possible. Please feel free to contact me.
Tall Timbers Research Station & Land Conservancy
Tall Timbers Research Station & Land Conservancy has been closely following the work of the
Georgia Water Contingency Task Force. Tall Timbers interest in the work of the Task Force
stems from our role as one of the largest regional land trusts in the southeastern United States.

Our mission is to conserve the ecological, scenic, and historical resources of the Red Hills region
of southwest Georgia and north Florida. The Red Hills is a unique rural landscape, home to 64
protected species of plants and animals. Tall Timbers also has significant conservation interests
in the Lower Flint River watershed. In these two special areas, we have worked closely with
conservation-minded private landowners to permanently protect more than 112,000 acres of
critical wildlife habitat as well as rivers, streams, springs, and one of the most productive
freshwater aquifer systems in the United States.

~ 33 ~
Tall Timbers appreciates the important work that the Georgia Water Contingency Task Force has
completed in such a short time frame. We encourage the Task Force to consider the following
suggestions as it develops recommendations for Governor Perdue.

First, establish as the highest priority, aggressive Metro Atlanta water conservation and efficiency
measures.

Georgia Water Coalition resource experts have identified the potential for significant water
savings at a price per gallon lower than other infrastructure-based options. Second, aggressively
pursue reauthorizing and reallocating water from Lake Lanier as one aspect of a long-term,
comprehensive water supply plan for Metro Atlanta. The reauthorization and reallocation must
recognize the critical ecosystem management role played by adequate downstream flows on the
Apalachicola-Chattahoochee-Flint system. Third, interbasin water transfers, reservoir
construction and expansion projects, and South Georgia groundwater transfer projects could all
have significant adverse impacts to Georgias ecology, economy, and quality of life. These
costly options should not be considered until all conservation, efficiency, and reservoir
reallocation measures are implemented to the greatest extent practicable.

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this important issue.
Governors Agriculture Advisory Commission
The Water Contingency Task Force is to be commended for seeking solutions to insure all
Georgians have adequate water in the future. Their work sends a strong message to all Georgians
and to our neighbors that we are dedicated to water conservation. Members of the Governors
Agriculture Advisory Commission support and are practicing aggressive conservation measures
and support expanding existing reservoirs and building new ones. However there has been some
concern with the mention of restrictions on outdoor water use. The green industry and urban
agriculture has just gone through one of the worst economic times with massive layoffs and
economic losses. According to a UGA study, the industry recently suffered a loss of 35,000 jobs
and over $3.15 billion in economic harm.

Some suggestions from the Governors Ag Commission include:
Building additional reservoirs
Accommodate a minimum 30 day installation allowance for new landscapes
Allowing retail garden centers, wholesale nurseries and landscape contractors to water their
plants
Continue with outdoor water use certification program
Maintain current exemptions for agriculture use
Support conservation of water i.e. variable rate irrigation, sensors, micro-irrigation, drip
irrigation
Creation of an outdoor water use committee
WATER CONTINGENCY PLANNING TASK FORCE
SUBMISSIONS RECEIVED
FROM
TASK FORCE MEMBERS
AND
OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES
October-December 2009
To access the interactive Index, click on the Bookmarks tab on the upper left
Harvesting rain is states most viable solution
By Joe Clark, Steve Williams, and Russ Jackson
Atlantas water wars and water woes are at the forefront of many of our minds, as Federal
Judge Paul Magnusons July 2012 deadline for an agreement for water withdrawal from Lake
Lanier looms closer each day. Jay Bookman and the AJC editorial board have addressed some of
the issues surrounding this controversial ruling (Lopsided water task force isnt up to the task,
Opinion Nov. 13) and have raised good questions regarding the GA Water Task Force and the
controversial proposals the metro area faces as we seek answers to the water shortages we will
undoubtedly face in the future.
According to Bookmans article, Governor Perdues spokesman, Bert Brantley, said the task
force is looking for, the most readily available, and cost-effective available, options that you can
bring online as fast as possible. The AJCs Dan Chapman has contributed an article, as well,
detailing the results of polling data indicating the publics widespread desire for additional
conservation methods, and for increasing the pool in both Lake Lanier and Lake Allatoona (Poll:
Put water conservation first, AJC Nov. 18).
The GA Water Contingency Task Force co-chairs, John Brock and Tom Lowe, have even
given their viewpoint, too (New statewide water task force is focusing on 3 fronts at once,
Nov.17), stressing that there are three areas of focus enhancing conservation efforts,
increasing the states ability to capture rain and groundwater, and reviewing current control and
management policies and issuing a call for public input, saying Any and all options under these
three categories will be examined.
Here is our suggestion to the GA Water Task Force, Governor Perdue, the state legislature,
and all local municipalities, as well as the reasons why we believe it should be a large part of
Georgias plan for mitigating water shortages in the future.
The Governor, EPD, and the New State Water Districts should work together to mandate the
installation of, and provide economic incentives for, Rainwater Harvesting Systems (RHS) for
new construction of both commercial and residential buildings, and provide economic incentives
for existing commercial and residential users who install RHS at their existing homes for non-
potable uses. Currently the Metropolitan North Georgia Water District only requires RHS as an
educational option.
RHS should be promoted for the following reasons:
RHS legislation that would mandate systems during new construction and provide
incentives for homeowners to install RHS would create a new industry for Georgia, giving
a boost to our economy, and creating employment opportunities for currently unemployed
workers, while contributing to the tax base through additional sales and income taxes.
RHS would mitigate the need for construction of new dams and evaporation-prone
reservoirs, which would once again tend to place the Atlanta areas needs above Georgias
growing cities downstream, and save taxpayers billions of dollars in the process. This
money could be distributed in the form of incentives for installing RHS. If we are going to
Page 1
go into debt through bond sales for water solutions, we should share the burdens, and the
rewards, equally.
RHS is nothing new in Europe and Australia, and the capture, filtering, storage, and
delivery technologies have been evolving to state-of-the-art for the past twenty years.
Systems are used to capture rain and groundwater, are mandated in drought-stricken
Australia, and are used to mitigate flood damage in Germany.
RHS are part of the USGBC (United States Green Building Council) LEED (Leadership in
Energy and Environmental Design) Standards, and essential to sustainable development in
the Atlanta metro area, and throughout the state. Projects desiring LEED certification can
gain up to 14 points by installing RHS.
RHS could be installed and operational in hundreds of homes and businesses in a matter of
months, and tens of thousands of homes and businesses in just a few years, whereas simply
negotiating the environmental and legal issues surrounding construction of new dams,
reservoirs, desalination plants, etc. would take years, and that does not even include the
actual construction time. In addition, reservoirs lose water to evaporation, and destroy eco-
systems both upstream and downstream, while desalination plants waste water, use a large
amount of energy, and produce a toxic sludge that creates an ecological hazard.
RHS would save millions of gallons of potable water that we are currently flushing down
our toilets. Thats right, we are currently flushing our toilets with drinking water. This
wasteful practice would be mitigated by the installation of RHS for all new construction.
RHS would allow irrigation for all landscaping installations (not just new) during drought
conditions, and save millions of gallons of potable water in the process. Not to mention,
RHS would provide economic benefits to many landscaping companies, that could risk
failure as viable economic entities, should severe water restrictions be enacted in the future.
All new construction with irrigation should be required to install RHS. Rainwater can also
improve plant growth by as much as 30% over chlorinated municipal water.
RHS for irrigation would help replenish the water table, rather than depleting it as well-
water irrigation does. By capturing rainwater that would otherwise run-off downstream
into the ocean (which benefits no one, not even Atlantas downstream neighbors, due to
pollution and flooding issues), and slowly releasing it back into the ground through
irrigation or wastewater treatment facilities, RHS provide a means for replenishing the
water table and preserving streams and rivers. Capturing rainwater at the source would also
negate the need for expensive, wasteful, desalination plants and excessive energy usage to
return processed seawater to the Atlanta area.
For all these reasons, and more, we believe Rainwater Harvesting Systems should be an
integral part of any regional or statewide water plan. The development community is slowly
recognizing this one simple fact: due to the growing population of our state, and the Atlanta
metro area in particular, sustainable development is the only course of action that will allow us all
to thrive and prosper. We simply cannot continue to have the narrow-minded focus that many
developers have had in the past. We need to understand the tremendous benefits, especially to
the local community, but also to the entire state, of harvesting rainwater and using it to augment
the municipal supply. During the drought of 2007-2008, we saw the disastrous effects of over-
development without a focus on sustainability, and the tremendous strain it put on our water
resources. Conversely, the non-porous surfaces of our cities caused excessive run-off during the
heavy rains this fall, resulting in widespread flooding throughout the region. Proper rainwater
management is the key to solving both issues, and RHS can be designed to meet these needs.
Page 2
Finally, we want to acknowledge that it would be wrong to pit developers against members of
the sustainable development movement, or those who might be more ecologically minded, but
who might mistakenly seek to shutdown growth in Atlanta. We are all in this together. The
developers cannot continue developing if the cities and counties cannot issue building permits.
The building permits cannot be issued unless there is the necessary infrastructure (in this case,
water supply) to support the new development. As the sustainable development community and
the ecologically aware understand, there simply is not enough water available, especially given
the restrictions that will almost certainly be put on Lake Lanier in two and a half short years, to
continue growing as we have in the past. However, according to the statistics, Georgia will
continue to see an increase in population. We cannot wall off our state and tell newcomers they
are unwelcome. Even if we could, our economy would go into free-fall. So, we all need to
understand that we have the technology available to continue providing opportunities for growth
in the region, and we all need to work together to get this message out through the grassroots
level, until the political will exists to insist on sustainable development. We have already done
too much damage to our streambeds, rivers, and other water resources to allow development to
continue in an unsustainable way. It is time to insist that everyone commit to making the
necessary changes to our development ideologies that will allow the economic engine of Georgia
to continue to drive growth, but only the sustainable growth that will not rape our regions
resources and leave a legacy of blight to our children and grandchildren.
With almost 50 inches of rain a year in the Metro Atlanta area a modest 2500 square foot 1
story house can realistically capture about 70,000 gallons of water per year. This could provide
all the water needs for 2 people for a year. Why are we letting it go down the drain?
Joe Clark is the Business Development Director of RainbankUSA, and a member of the
American Rainwater Catchment Systems Association of America (ARCSA). Visit
www.rainbankusa.com or www.arcsa.org for more information.
Steve Williams, is The Rain Saver owner of Buildinggreener LLC and a lifetime member of the
American Rainwater Catchment Systems Association of America (ARCSA), ARCSA Accredited
Professional www.TheRainSaver.com and www.SavingWithRain.info
Russ Jackson, LEED AP, is Director of Sales for Rain Harvest Systems, a rain harvesting
components wholesaler.
Page 3

Comments submitted via email to: info@gawatertaskforce.com
Comments copied to: hoddel.martin@bcg.com, kkirkpatrick@macoc.com, dmiell@gmail.com

November 19, 2009

Dear Georgia Water Contingency Task Force Members:

On behalf of American Rivers, thank you for the opportunity to provide the Task Force with our
recommendations and input to help further inform your work as you develop a proposal to address the
potential gap in supply that would exist should Judge Magnusons ruling go into effect in July 2012.

We provide these recommendations in addition to the Georgia Water Coalition comments submitted on
November 6, 2009 which we fully support and helped to formulate. These recommendations serve to
elaborate and highlight particular points and complement the specific policy recommendations included in
the Georgia Water Coalition document.

With Judge Magnusons decision, Metro Atlanta is now faced with a very real water limitation, an urgent
need to secure sustainable water supplies, and a clear opportunity to embark on a path towards sustainable
water management to support future growth. There seems to be a popular perception that water
conservation and efficiency and related non-structural water supply measures can provide only marginal
benefits, not a substantial a source of supply as currently exists in Lake Lanier. The evidence and
experience in many other cities strongly suggests otherwise. American Rivers urges the members of the
Task Force to embrace sustainable water management policies and programs that are proven, cost-
effective, timely and reliable. Specifically we recommend the following key steps as part of a
comprehensive water supply program:

1. Projecting and planning for population and economic growth in conjunction with
decreased per capita water supply needs;
2. Aggressively pursuing water conservation and efficiency investments, a cheaper, more
reliable hidden reservoir;
3. Authorizing Lake Lanier for water supply purposes with clear conservation and
efficiency requirements; and
4. Increasing capacity of existing dam/reservoir facilities, rather than building new ones.
5. Promoting development patterns, stormwater management strategies and
infrastructure that preserves or mimics existing natural hydrology (e.g. pervious
pavement, rain gardens).

With these five steps, metro Atlanta can follow the path of other leading US and international cities that
have successfully secured their immediate water needs, and also secured a more predictable and
manageable future water supply, while guaranteeing sustainable and healthy flows for downstream
communities and industries.

Page 4
2
1. Projecting and planning for population growth in conjunction with decreased water supply
needs. As metro Atlanta grows in population, the water supply needed to sustain that population
does NOT necessarily need to grow. In fact, many communities across the country and the
Southeast have successfully increased population while maintaining or actually decreasing the
total amount of water they use. There is a hidden reservoir embedded in our current inefficient
water use. Some notable examples include Seattle which between the early 1990s and 2009
achieved a total reduction in water consumption of nearly 20% (saving 31 MGD) and a 33% per
capita reduction in water consumption while increasing their population by 16%. Cobb County,
GA added 42,000 new customers between 2003 and 2008 and maintained their 65MGD water
consumption through conservation efforts. And between 2000 and 2009, Clayton County, GA
reduced their total water consumption by 15% (eliminating the need for 4.5 MGD) while
increasing their service population by 42%.

The Metropolitan North Georgia Water Planning District water demand projections do not plan for
feasible decreases in per capita consumption or overall consumption. The population projections
and the demand projections were the focus of a study conducted by the Pacific Institute in which
both are criticized for being over-stated.
1
These same demand projections were used to determine
the gap in water supply for 2012. We encourage the State of Georgia and metro Atlanta to follow
the lead of other communities and plan for decreasing use of water supplies, tapping the hidden
reservoir of efficiency to secure water for growing communities.

2. Aggressively pursuing water conservation and efficiency, our hidden reservoir. Metro Atlanta
communities consume, on average, 89 gallons per capita per day (gpcd)
2
. A conserving household
consumes 45.2 gpcd. An analysis conducted by the Alliance for Water Efficiency for American
Rivers showed that proven, low-hanging fruit water efficiency measures could yield up to 210
millions of gallons a day (MGD), a 33% savings, for metro Atlanta. Total water saved could make
up for all the withdrawals from Lake Lanier which is currently permitted for 178 MGD to metro
Atlanta. In addition, metro Atlanta could save up to $700 million by pursuing water efficiency to
secure water supply as compared to building new reservoirs. Moreover, with efficiency, the
Metropolitan North Georgia Water Planning District could eliminate the need for all six of its
planned reservoirs (totaling 108.4 MGD)
3
nearly two times over.

We encourage the State of Georgia and metro Atlanta to aggressively adopt the proven and effective
programs listed below from American Rivers Hidden Reservoir
4
study that would effectively secure
the majority of the water supply needed for metro Atlanta if Judge Magnusons decision were to go into
effect.
Metro Atlanta Estimated Water Savings Ranges
5

Low High
Stop Leaks in the water utility distribution pipes.
In metro Atlanta 117 MGD are lost each day to leaks and unaccounted for uses.
Fixing leaks saves water and helps a utilitys bottom line by eliminating the need
to treat and pump lost water that they are not paid for producing.
29.34 58.68
Price water to encourage efficient use. 53.79 78.89

1
Pacific Institute, A Review of Water Conservation Planning for the Atlanta, Georgia Region, August 2006.
2
Metropolitan North Georgia Water District, Water Supply and Conservation Management Plan, 2009.
3
Ibid.
4
American Rivers, Hidden Reservoir: Why Water Efficiency is the Best Solution for the Southeast. October 2008.
www.AmericanRivers.org/WaterEfficiencyReport
5
Based on Metropolitan North Georgia Water Planning District 2003 consumption numbers, 652 MGD.

Page 5
3
Water is not priced at its true value and some utilities incentivize water waste.
Conservation pricing provides a price signal to the customer to conserve, while
providing a price structure that protects the utilitys solvency in times of plentiful
water and drought.
Meter all uses to measure water consumption.
Most multi-family/commercial buildings include water costs in monthly rent/fees
thereby eliminating market signals to b more efficient.
Sub-metering reduces risk and costs for the building manager by making the
water consumer accountable for their use.
5.87 9.39
Retrofit all buildings with water efficient fixtures.
Outdated fixtures and appliances waste water. Retrofitting building infrastructure
through incentives such as rebates/tax holidays and through ordinances such as
Retrofit on Reconnect generate proven, reliable and significant water savings.
A 35% decrease in water use is possible through retrofits alone.
36.35 54.52
Landscape to minimize waste.
On average 30% of household drinking water is used to water lawns, tree, and
shrubs. On average 50% of that water is wasted.
Peaks in demand generated by outdoor water use drive the need to develop new
water sources and expand water infrastructure. By reducing the peak, the life of
infrastructure is extended, sometimes eliminating the need for new sources.
8.41 12.62
Total MGD Saved 133.76
MGD
214.10
MGD
Percent Savings 20.51% 32.84%

To take these water savings estimates to the next, more specific level, we recommend the affected utilities
conduct an assessment of potential water efficiency policies and programs to determine which ones are
best suited to their customer base and seasonal demand patterns. The Alliance for Water Efficiency
recently designed a water tracking tool that can assess and compare over fifty different efficiency
programs and supply options and compare costs and cost effectiveness. This is a valuable tool that City of
Atlantas Department of Watershed and Cobb Countys Water System have started to use and we
recommend the Task Force encourage all the affected utilities to take this next step to determine how best
to secure water savings cost-effectively.

3. Authorizing Lake Lanier for water supply purposes. Lake Lanier is a readily available source
of water supply. Authorizing Lake Lanier for water supply purposes is an economical and
environmentally sound path to pursue, but only if the region commits to using the resource as
efficiently as possible. Therefore, we encourage the State of Georgia and metro Atlanta to pursue
the federal authorization of Lake Lanier for water supply purposes so long as the authorization
also provides for healthy downstream flows, requires efficient use of the resource, and ensures that
water supply not be prioritized over other authorized uses.

4. Increasing capacity of existing facilities. Georgia, and particularly north Georgia, has many
water supply and agricultural reservoirs that could potentially be expanded to provide additional
water supply. Increasing capacity within some of the existing reservoirs has the potential to
increase existing water supplies at a lower cost, within a shorter timeframe, and with fewer
environmental issues. Dredging and raising pool elevations are worthy of consideration and could
possibly be done in such a way that will not cause unwanted negative consequences
downstream. We encourage the State of Georgia and metro Atlanta to investigate the potential for
Page 6
4
increasing the capacity of existing reservoirs and repurposing old quarries for water supply
purposes.

5. Promoting development patterns, stormwater management strategies and infrastructure
that preserves or mimics existing natural hydrology. A major contributor to our water
problems is the way we develop land. As the impervious surfaces that characterize sprawling
development roads, parking lots, driveways, and roofs replace meadows and forests, rain no
longer can seep into the ground to replenish base flows to rivers (base flow accounts for about half
of a streams volume). In the 2002 report, Paving Our Way to Water Shortages
6
, American Rivers,
Natural Resources Defense Council and Smart Growth America, determined that Atlanta topped
the list of cities that lost water supply to sprawl. Comparing the level of imperviousness in 1997 to
1982, we found that the potential amount of water not infiltrated annually ranged from 56.9 billion
to 132.8 billion gallons in Atlanta. Atlantas "losses" in 1997 amounted to enough water to supply
the average daily household needs of 1.5 million to 3.6 million people per year.

Using smart growth and green infrastructure approaches, we can reduce the impact of
development. While there is no one-size-fits-all definition, smart growth generally entails
integrated planning and incentives and infrastructure investments to revitalize existing
communities, prevention of leapfrogging sprawl, providing more transportation choices, and
protecting open space. Green infrastructure includes protecting healthy landscapes like forests and
small streams that naturally sustain clean water supplies; restoring degraded landscapes like
floodplains and wetlands so they can better store flood water and recharge streams and aquifers;
and replicating natural water systems in urban settings, to capture rainwater for outdoor watering
and other uses and prevent stormwater and sewage pollution
7
. We encourage the State of Georgia
and metro Atlanta to utilize well-established smart-growth planning and practices that can
transform our development patterns and infrastructure to support the protection and restoration of
natural hydrologic cycles that protect our water supplies.

World-class cities like metro Atlanta should strive for the smartest and most cost-effective strategies for
water supply, just as we would in any other aspect of our civic and economic life. The strategies described
above can provide the basis for a more sustainable and certain future for the region.

Again, thank you for the opportunity to provide comments to the Task Force. Please do not hesitate to
contact me with questions or for more information.

Sincerely,

Jenny Hoffner
Director, Water Supply
American Rivers

6
American Rivers, Paving Our Way to Water Shortages, 2002. http://www.americanrivers.org/library/reports-
publications/paving-our-way-to-water.html
7
American Rivers, Natural Security: How Sustainable Water Strategies Prepare Communities for a Changing Climate 2009.
http://www.americanrivers.org/our-work/global-warming-and-rivers/infrastructure/natural-security.html
Page 7
By Steven Andrew Wi l l i ams
2008
Page 8
Population of M etro Atlanta - 5,723,788
M etro Atlanta Area - 4832 SquareM iles
Water used per day - 600,000,000 gallons
Page 9
87,560,480,000
Gal l ons of wat er
Page 10
Steve Williams
Page 11
Tr ee TT ll oss ii n h t he A l At l ant a met r o ar ea ffr om 7 1974 t o 1996
l d r esul t ed ii n a 33% ii ncr ease ii n st or mwat er r f unof ff fff (f (fr om h each
2-year k peak st or m ev ) ent ). hi Thi s l t r ansl at es ii nt o an i d est i mat ed
591 i l l i mi l l i on bi cubi c ffeet f of wat er or 7 4,420,987,013 l l gal l ons. CCost s
t o bb i l d ui l d i d engi neer ed syst ems t o ii nt ercept hi t hi s r f unof ff fff w l d oul d
$ bi l l i ($ / bi f f cost $1.18 bi l l i on ($2/cubi c ft . of st or ag ) i d l l e) i n 2001 dol l ar s.
Dat a fr om t he Amer i can For est s st udy
Ur ban Ecosyst em Anal ysi s, At l ant a, GA
Page 12
This translates to $85.9 million per year.
Page 13
Page 14
T he CSO Consent Decree i s $1.1 Bi l l i on
Page 15
Wat er Runof f
f r om Devel opment
Page 16
Devel opment i n At l ant a, GA and sur r oundi ng count i es
cont r i but e t o a year l y l oss of gr oundwat er i nf i ff l t r at i on
r angi ng f r ff om 57 t o 133 bi l l i on gal l ons f r ff om 1982- 1997.
Page 17
Amer i can Ri ver s, Nat ur al Resour ces Def ense Counci l
and Smar t Gr owt h Amer i ca, Repor t :
Paving Our Way to Water Shortages:
How Sprawl Aggravates the Effects of Draught
August 28, 2002
Page 18
Page 19
Ret en t i on Pon d s
St r eet s t o Sewer s
Page 20
Ponds
Page 21
Page 22
St r eet s
t o
Page 23
Erosi on and Loss of Top Soi l
Streets Floodi ng
T he Floodi ng of Creeks and Streams
Page 24
Page 25
Top Soi l
Page 26
Page 27
Page 28
Thi s i s Ar r ow cr eek i n Met r o At l ant a
showi ng REAL exampl es of Downcut t i ng,
Wi deni ng, Sedi ment at i on and St abl e,
Ent r enchment wi t h i n a 1/4 mi l e st r et ch.
Page 29
Downcut t i ng
Page 30
Wi deni ng
Page 31
Page 32
Page 33
T he Chunnel connecti ng Engl and and Fr ance, has become a
cl assi c exampl e of a technol ogi cal mar vel that has been
unabl e to j usti fy the costs.
T he Cl ean Water Atl anta i ni ti ati ve, the capi tal i mprovement
progr am under way to hel p resol ve stor mwater i ssues through
underground tunnel s.
Page 34
Bi g Di g
Pr obl ems
Page 35
The
Chunnel
Page 36
Page 37
Page 38
BI O M I M I C RY
(from the Greek, bi os - l i fe and mi mesi s - i mi tati on)
many of t he i ssues pl agui ng
our wat er suppl y can be
r esol ved i n an economi cal and
envi r onment al l y f r i endl y way.
Page 39
~Jani ne Benyus (1997) Bi omi mi cry: Innovat i on Inspi red by Nat ure.
Nat ur e as Ment or
Bi omi mi cr y uses an ecol ogi cal standard to j udge the
" r i ghtness" of our i nnovati ons.
Nat ur e as Measur e
Bi omi mi cr y i s a new way of vi ewi ng and val ui ng nature.
Page 40
Page 41
Page 42
Sci ent i st s know
t hat headwat er
st r eams make up
at l east 80
per cent of t he
nat i ons st r eam
net wor k.
St r eams pr ovi de i s a l t er i ng pr ocess
64 percent of i nor gani c ni t r ogen ent er i ng a smal l st r eam
i s r et ai ned or t r ansfor med i nt o a l ess har mful subst ance
wi t hi n 1,000 yards
Page 43
The $25 mi l l i on Gr eenway Acqui si t i on Pr oj ect i s t o
be i mpl ement ed i n t he Ci t y of At l ant a and four t een
(14) count i es i n Met r o At l ant a t hr ough March, 2007.
Tar get ed st r eams ar e Mar ked i n r ed.
Page 44
Wetl ands
Page 45
Det ent i on ponds
Wet l ands
or
A H ol e to Store Stor mwater.
Page 46
Const r uct ed wet l ands pr ovi de pr ot ect i on agai nst i ni t i al
st or m-ows whi ch ar e t ypi cal l y hi gh i n pol l ut ant s.
Fi l ter i ng, settl i ng, and retenti on of suspended par ti cul ate matter.
Adsor pti on of metal s i nto cl ay par ti cl es.
Tr ansfor mati on of compounds i n the soi l and water col umn.
Plant uptake of di ssolved compounds such as ni trogen and phosphorus.
Page 47
What ar e ot her benet s of usi ng (const r uct ed) wet l ands for st or mwat er management ?
T he negati ve water qual i ty i mpacts of stor m-ow to recei vi ng streams
i s reduced.
Downstream channel s are protected from scour, erosi on and
sedi mentati on by reduci ng peak ow.
Aestheti c and l andscapi ng val ue i s enhanced.
Wi l dl i fe habi tat, especi al l y water fowl and war m water sher i es,
i s i mproved.
Page 48
How much does i t cost t o
const r uct and mai nt ai n
st or mwat er wet l ands?
Mai nt enance:
Cost s var y, but nor mal l y r ange fr om
3 t o 5% of const r uct i on cost s
annual l y.
Capi t al Cost :
$ 1,500/i mper vi ous acr e.
Page 49
Wetl ands
Ci ster ns
Page 50
AA rr aaii nn hhaarr vveessttii nngg tteecchhnniii qquuee tthhaatt ccaann ssttoorree wwaatteerr ffoorr sshhoorr ttaaggee ffff ss,, rreedduuccee
ssttoorr mmwwaatteerr aanndd rreeppll aaccee ppoottaabbll ee wwaatteerr uusseess wwii tthh nnoonn--ppoottaabbll ee wwaatteerr. rrrr
Page 51
The i dea of col l ect i ng r ai nwat er has been ar ound for t housands of
year s.
Tr eat ed wat er i s an expensi ve r esource.
Of al l t he wat er on Ear t h, 3% i s sui t abl e for human consumpt i on. And
of t hat 3%, most i s ei t her l ocked i n pol ar i ce caps and gl aci er s or
hi dden beyond t he r each of commerci al t echnol ogi es. A l i t t l e l ess t han
1% of our wat er i s found i n l akes, r i ver s, and appr oachabl e
under gr ound aqui fer s.
By di ver t i ng r ai nwat er dur i ng heavy r ai ns, ci st er ns can st or e i t for use
dur i ng dr aught , t hi s wi l l al so r educe st or mwat er r un of f.
Technol ogy i s r eadi l y avai l abl e and r el at i vel y i nexpensi ve.
Rai nwat er i s a heal t hi er al t er nat i ve t o pot abl e wat er for pl ant s and
i r r i gat i on.
Rai nwat er col l ect i on i s i nsur ance for your pl ant s.
Page 52
Less t han 50% of Amer i can househol d wat er
usage r equi r es t he pur i cat i on of dr i nki ng wat er.
Rai nwat er Uses 63%
1: Toi l et s
2: Laundr y
3: Out door
4: Ot her
Pur i ed Wat er Uses 37%
5: Dr i nki ng/Cooki ng
6: Di shwashi ng
7: Shower and Bat h
Page 53
Dust Control
Manufacturi ng Processes
Washi ng Vehi cl es
Speci al i zed Cl eani ng Processes
Agri cul tureand Ani mal Husbandr y
Concrete and Constr ucti on
Page 54
I n l ar ge ofces and publ i c bui l di ngs, r ai nwat er can be used for ushi ng
t oi l et s and ur i nal s and for cl eani ng.
Anot her use for r ai nwat er i n t he
commer ci al sect or i s i r r i gat i on.
Rai nwat er al l ows for an i nexpensi ve and
heal t hy way t o wat er pl ant s dur i ng
dr ought s.
Page 55
Per vi ous Concr ete
Wetl ands
Ci ster ns
Page 56
Page 57
ADVANTAGES
The advant ages of usi ng por ous pavement i ncl ude:
Reduces demand on stor mwater
i nfr astr ucture.
Recharges l ocal aqui fer s.
Retrot exi sti ng i mper i ous areas.
Page 58
USES
A few i deas for Per vi ous Concr et e
Dr i veways
Paths and wal kways
Cur bi ng for streets
Retrot exi sti ng i mper i ous areas.
Page 59
Many pavement engi neer s and cont r act or s l ack exper t i se wi t h t hi s
t echnol ogy.
CONCERNS
Por ous pavement has a t endency t o become cl ogged i f i mpr oper l y
i nst al l ed or mai nt ai ned.
Por ous pavement can have a hi gh r at e of fai l ur e.
Ther e i s some r i sk of cont ami nat i ng gr oundwat er, dependi ng on soi l
condi t i ons and aqui fer suscept i bi l i t y.
Some bui l di ng codes may not al l ow for i t s i nst al l at i on.
Anaer obi c condi t i ons may devel op i n under l yi ng soi l s i f t he soi l s ar e
unabl e t o dr y out bet ween st or m event s. Thi s may i mpede
mi cr obi ol ogi cal decomposi t i on.
Page 60
Wetl ands
Contour i ng L and-Ear thworks
Ci ster ns
Page 61
Wat ch t he wat er when i t r ai ns
Pl ay and Exper i ment
Pl ace swal es and nat ur al i st i c r ock wal l s t hr ough out t he
l andscape t o sl ow down t he st or mwat er r unof f and al l ow for
gr ound wat er r echar ge.
Page 62
UUse l d i l andscapi ng h i t echni ques h t hat di di ver t wat er t o st ay aa on h t he
l a d, not r l annd, not r f un of ff fff h i d on t he si de w l k r h r d al k or t he r oad.
Page 63
Rai se si dewal ks and cur bs t o keep t he wat er on t he
per vi ous l and and of f t he st r eet s and si dewal ks.
Page 64
By cr eat i ng an oasi s st or mwat er r unof f can be t r eat ed and
r et ur ned t o t he gr ound i n an at t r act i ve way.
Page 65
Green Roofs
Wetl ands
Contour i ng L and-Ear thworks
Ci ster ns
Page 66
Page 67
Ameni ty Space and Aestheti cs
Page 68
M oder ati on of the Ur ban H eat I sl and Effect
Page 69
Food Producti on
Page 70
Page 71
I mproved Ai r Q ual i ty
Page 72
Stor mwater Reducti on
Page 73
Rest or at i on of t he nat ur al envi r onment i n st r eams and r i ver s i n
ur ban, subur ban and r ur al ar eas of at l east 100 feet .
Wi t h al most 50 i nches of r ai n a year . At l ant a has many
opt i ons t o ext end t he cur r ent wat er suppl y f or decades
Research, t r ai n, educat e and r eward pr ofessi onal s and t he publ i c i n
usi ng l andscapi ng and agr i cul t ur al pr act i ces t hat manage and use
st or mwat er mor e efci ent l y.
Research t r adi t i onal wat er management pr act i ces t hat have been
used for t housands of year s and mer ge t hem wi t h moder n
t echnol ogy, t o use r ai nwat er and st or mwat er mor e ef fect i vel y.
Fi nal l y and most i mpor t ant i s t he suppor t of t he Gover nor and
Mayor for t hese measur es of wat er use and i nuence t he publ i c t o
open t hei r mi nds t o new ways.
Eval uat e const r uct i on of t he st or mwat er t unnel s success t o see i f
t he r emai ni ng cost of const r uct i on can be of fset by mor e nat ur al and
cost efci ent st or mwat er management pr act i ces.
These opt i ons i ncl ude:
Page 74
HH . DDavi d aa TT hhur stoon PProffessor EEmer i tus - DDeppar tmmentt off PPl antt PPatthol ogy, yy CCorr nel l UUni ver si tty, yy II thhaca, NNYY, YY
1448500
FFar FF mmii nngg ii n NNatuure's II maagge by JJuddii th JJ DD. SSoull e andd JJon KK . PPii pperr, rr i s a bookk abbouut thhe ssci ennccee of suustaai nabbll e
aaggrr i cull tture. TT he authhorr s, twwo prrofessi onal eccoll ogi sts at tthhe LL annd II nnsti tute, KK ansas UUSSAA.
GGeorrggii aa SSttorr mwaatter MM aannaagemmennt MM aanuall : VVol uume VV 1: AAttll anntta RRee RRR ggi onnaal CCommmmi ssii onn
wwwww.SSttaarr ww kkEEn rrr vii rr nn onnmmeennttaall .ccoomm
WWii kkii ppe WWW ddii aa
RRaaii nnwwaatterr HH aarr vveessttii ng fforr DDr ff yyll annddss by BBrr aadd LL aanncaastterr
CConnssttrr ucttii onn RRee RRRR ssoouurrcces ii ss BBrr ii taai nn's rr stt ecool ooggii ccaall bbuii ll dderr ss' mmeerrcchhaanntt, aanndd aa cenntterr ffoor e ff ccoll ooggii ccaall bbuuii ll ddii nngg. gg
UUr bbaann EEccossyssteemm AAnnaall ysi ss, AAttll aannttaa MM ettrroo AArreeaa, CCaall cuull atti nng tthhe VVall uue VV ooff NNaattuurree, AAMM EERRII CCAANN FFOO RREESSTT SS
PP.OO PPP . BBooxxx 2200000 WWaasshhii nnggttoonn DDCC 200001133 WWWW
WWhherree RRii vveerr ss AArree BBoor nn:TT hhe SScci enntti c II mmpperr aattii vvee fforr ff DDeffeennddii nngg SSmmaall ll SSttrreeaamms aanndd WWee WWW ttl aannddss. AAmmeerr ii cann
RRii vveerr ss aanndd tthhe SSii err rr aa CCll uubb
AAmmeerr ii ccaann RRii vveerr ss, NNaattuurr aall RRe RR ssoouurceess DDeffeennssee CCoouunnccii l aanndd SSmmaarr tt GGrroowwtthh AAmmeerr ii caa, RRe RR ppoorr tt
TT hee AAll coovvyy WWaa WW tterr shhedd PProtteeccttii oonn PPrroojj ecct, UUnnii vveerr ssi tyy ooff GGeeoorrggii aass II nnsttii ttuutte ooff EEnnerrggyy aanndd tthhee NNoorr ttthhheeaasstt
GGeeoorrggii aa RR
y
e RR ggi onnaall DDee
y
vveel ooppmmennttaal CCeentterr
BBrr aadd LL aannccaastteerr wwwwww..HH aarr vv wwww eessttii nnggRRaaii nn.ccoomm RRaaii nnwwaatteerr HH aarr vveesttii nngg fforr DDrr ffff yyll aannddss VVooll . II &&II II VV
Page 75
Page 76
Dargan Scott Cole - 1 -
Ideas for Metro Atlanta Water Supply Contingency Planning
Short-Term Solutions (Implementable by 2012)
Mid-Term Solutions (Implementable by 2015)
Long-Term Solutions (Implementable post 2015)
Gwinnett County
Current demand of 69 mgd (AA), 88 mgd (PM), 110 mgd (PD)
1
Short-Term
Conservation reduces Average Annual demand from high of 72 mgd in 2007 to
68 mgd and Peak Month demand from 108 mgd in 2007 to 88 mgd or less.
Lake Lanier Continued withdrawals from Lake Lanier in the amount of 2 mgd
(AA) and 3.2 mgd (PD).
2

Hard Labor Creek Reservoir (Walton and Oconee Counties).
o The project is scheduled to start construction in Q1 2010.
o Initial yield is in the range of 13 mgd (AA) and 21 mgd (PD)
3
.
o Walton County currently uses 4.3 mgd (AA) and 6.9 mgd (PD).
o Project will have 8.7 mgd (AA) and 14.1 mgd (PD) available for short-
term supply.
o The projects yield can be increased to nearly 42 mgd (AA) and 62 (PD)
with the construction of a raw water intake and pipeline from the
Appalachee River.
o If constructed, the project will have 38 mgd (AA) and 57 mgd (PD)
available for short-term supply.
o Gwinnett would have to find a long-term solution as water from this
project will be needed to satisfy projected demand in Walton and Oconee
Counties.
Requires transfer into the MNGWPD from outside.
IBT from Oconee to Ocmulgee or Chattahoochee basin
Water treatment plant needed
Transmission lines needed
City of Monroe Reservoir (Walton County).
o The project has a current yield of 10 mgd (AA)
4
and 16 mgd (PD).
o Monroe has a current demand of 1.6 mgd (AA) and 2.7.

1
Uses EPD data to calculate AA and PM demand as average of January withdrawals for 2007 2009
(AA) and August withdrawals for 2007 2009 (PM).
2
Under the Judges Order, the city of Buford may continue to withdraw 2 mgd (AA) from Lake Lanier.
3
Peak day demand is calculated as 1.6 times AA
4
Estimated
Page 77
15880614.1
- 2 -
o Reservoir has 8 mgd (AA) and 13 mgd (PD) available immediately.
project will be needed to satisfy projected demand in Monroe.
Indirect Reuse Initiation of an indirect reuse program that does not utilize Lake
Lanier for mixing.
o Additional capacity of 27 mgd (AA)
5
and 43 mgd (PD)
Total capacity of 75 mgd (AA) and 116 mgd (PD)
Mid-Term
Expand Yargo State Park reservoir According to the reservoir study funded by
GEFA, the Yargo State Park reservoir can be expanded by approximately 3
billion gallons.
Barrow County Reservoir Barrow County Water & Sewerage Authority is
considering two reservoirs totaling 16 mgd (AA) and 25 mgd (PD).
Long-Term
Reallocation of storage in Lake Lanier
New Walton County Reservoir
New Hall County Reservoir
New Jackson County Reservoir
Other Options
Lake Varner Reservoir (Newton County).
o The project has a current yield of 28 mgd (AA) and 45 mgd (PD).
o Newton has a current demand of 6.7 mgd (AA) and 10.7 mgd (PD).
o Reservoir has 21.3 mgd (AA)
6
and 34.3 mgd (PD) available immediately.
Newton County Bear Creek Reservoir.
o The project has a proposed yield of 28 mgd (AA) and 45 mgd (PD).

5
Assumes 60% returns
6
Assumes, for calculation purposes, Walton Countys 25% is met by the Hard Labor Creek reservoir
project
Page 78
15880614.1
- 3 -
Proposed Glades Reservoir (Hall County).
o The project has a proposed yield of 6.5 mgd (AA) and 10.4 mgd (PD).
o Potential pump storage options which would significantly increase the
reservoirs yield are currently under review.
Page 79
15880614.1
- 4 -
DeKalb County
Current Demand of 65 mgd (AA), 80 mgd (PM), 102 mgd (PD)
7
Short-Term
Conservation - reduces Average Annual demand from high of 69 mgd in 2007 to
65 mgd and Peak Month demand from 92 mgd in 2007 to 80 mgd or less.
Chattahoochee River -- Continued withdrawals from the Chattahoochee River in
the amount of 30 mgd (AA) and 48 mgd (PD).
8

Big Haynes Creek Reservoir (Rockdale County).
o Rockdale has a current demand of 9 mgd (AA) and 14.4 mgd (PD).
o Reservoir has 18 mgd (AA) and 28.6 mgd (PD) available immediately.
project will be needed to satisfy projected demand in Rockdale County.
Water Treatment Plant needed
Indirect Reuse Initiate an indirect reuse program.
9
and 46 mgd (PD)
Mid-Term
Expand Rockdale Reservoir - according to the reservoir study funded by GEFA,
Rockdales Big Haynes Creek Reservoir can be expanded by approximately 5.4
billion gallons.
Lake Varner Reservoir (Newton County).
o Newton has a current demand of 6.7 mgd (AA) and 10.7 mgd (PD).
o Reservoir has 21.3 mgd (AA)
10
and 34.3 mgd (PD) available immediately.

7
Uses EPD data to calculate AA and PM demand as average of January withdrawals for 2007-2009 (AA)
and August withdrawals for 2007 2009 (PM).
8
Under the Judges Order, metro Atlanta may rely on 230 mgd of potential water supply from the
Chattahoochee River downstream of Buford Dam. The four major users are Dekalb County, Fulton
County, City of Atlanta, and Cobb County.
9
Assumes 60% returns
10
Assumes, for calculation purposes, Walton Countys 25% is met by the Hard Labor Creek reservoir
project
Page 80
15880614.1
- 5 -
Long-Term
Reallocation of Lake Lanier
Expansion of Newton Countys Cornish Creek reservoir
Proposed Bear Creek Reservoir in Newton County
Page 81
15880614.1
- 6 -
Fulton County (including the City of Atlanta)
11
Short-Term
Conservation - reduces Average Annual demand from high of 121 mgd in 2007
to 113 mgd and Peak Month demand from 163 mgd in 2007 to 139 mgd or less.
Chattahoochee River - Continued withdrawals from the Chattahoochee River in
12

Indirect Reuse program that utilized a combination of the Chattahoochee River
for mixing and the Bellwood Quarry for storage.
13
and 77 mgd (PD)
Mid-Term
South Fulton Reservoir
Fayette County System interconnection
Long-Term
New Dawson Forest reservoir
New Etowah River reservoir
Other Options
Douglas County System interconnection
Cobb County System interconnection

11
Uses EPD data to calculate AA and PM demand as average of January withdrawals for 2007-2009 (AA)
and August withdrawals for 2007-2009 (PM).
12
Under the Judges Order, Metro Atlanta may rely on 230 mgd of potential water supply from the
Chattahoochee River downstream of Buford Dam. The four major users are Dekalb County, Fulton
13
Assumes 60% returns
Page 82
15880614.1
- 7 -
Cobb County
14
Short-Term
Lake Allatoona - Continued withdrawals from Lake Allatoona.
Chattahoochee River - Continued withdrawals from the Chattahoochee River in
15

Hickory Log Creek Reservoir
o The project has a permitted yield of 44 mgd (AA) and 70 mgd (PD).
o Canton has a current demand of 2.5 mgd (AA) and 4 mgd (PD).
Mid-Term
Indirect Reuse
o An indirect reuse program that utilizes the Chattahoochee River for
mixing
o A program that utilizes Lake Allatoona for mixing.
Proposed Paulding County Reservoir
Long-Term
Reallocation of Lake Allatoona
New Dawson Forest Reservoir
New Etowah River Basin reservoir
Other Options
Cherokee Countys Hollis Lathem Reservoir

14
Uses EPD data to calculate AA and PM demand as average of January withdrawals for 2007 - 2009(AA)
and August withdrawals for 2007 2009 (PM).
15
Under the Judges Order, Metro Atlanta may rely on 230 mgd of potential water supply from the
Chattahoochee River downstream of Buford Dam. The Four major users are Dekalb County, Fulton
Page 83
15880614.1
- 8 -
Hall County
Current demand of 17 mgd (AA), 21 mgd (PM), 27 mgd (PD
Short-Term
Conservation - reduces Average Annual demand from high of 18 in 2007 to 17
mgd and Peak Month demand from 25 mgd in 2007 to 21 mgd or less.
Lake Lanier - Continued withdrawals from Lake Lanier in the amount of 8 mgd
(AA) and 12.8 mgd (PD).
16

Cedar Creek Reservoir 7.5 mgd (AA) and 12 mgd (PD)
Indirect Reuse An indirect reuse program that utilizes Lake Lanier for mixing.
17
and 15 mgd (PD)
Total capacity of 24.5 mgd (AA) and 39 mgd (PD)
Mid-Term
Proposed Glades Reservoir (Hall County).
o The project has a proposed yield of 6.5 mgd (AA) and 10.4 mgd (PD).
o Potential pump storage options which would significantly increase the
reservoirs yield are currently under review.
Long-Term
Other Options
Jackson County Reservoir
North Hall County Reservoir
White County Reservoir

16
Under the Judges Order, the City of Gainesville may continue to withdraw 8 mgd (AA) from Lake
Lanier.
17
Assumes 60% returns
Page 84
15880614.1
- 9 -
Forsyth County
Current demand of 13.5 mgd (AA), 21 mgd (PM), 21.6 mgd (PD)
Short Term
Conservation - reduces Peak Month demand from 28 mgd in 2007 to 21 mgd or
less.
Fulton Countys short-term options indicate as surplus of 15 mgd (AA) and 24
mgd (PD).
o Transmission lines needed
Mid-term
Proposed Russell Creek Reservoir
o Projected yield of 10 mgd (AA) and 16 mgd (PD)
Cherokee Countys Hollis Lathem Reservoir
o Cherokee has a current demand of 16 mgd (AA) and 26 mgd (PD)
18
o Reservoir has a permitted yield of 28 mgd (AA) and 45 mgd (PD)
Long-Term
New Etowah Basin Reservoir

18
Assumes none of the demand is met by the Hickory Log Creek Reservoir
Page 85
Page 86
Page 87
Page 88
Page 89
Page 90
Page 91
December 9, 2009
Fr om: Geor ge Moor e, Chai r , Webst er Count y Boar d of Commi ssoner s
J oe Lee Wi l l i ams, Chai r , St ewar t Count y Boar d of Commi ssi oner s
Geor ge Neal , Chai r , Mar i on Boar d of Commi ssi oner s
To: Geor gi a Wat er Cont i ngency Task For ce
Subj ect : Wat er Pr oposal
Gr eet i ngs:

As count y commi ssi on chai r s of t hr ee smal l er and l ess weal t hy
count i es i n t he Fl i nt Ri ver Basi n, we have have been st udyi ng an exci t i ng concept
t hat woul d enabl e t he Fl i nt Ri ver Basi n t o cont r i but e mat er i al l y t o of f set t i ng t he
vol ume of wat er now used out of Lake Lani er by t he At l ant a met r o ar ea -- wi t hout
t he vexi ng pr obl em of movi ng wat er f r om one r i ver basi n t o anot her , and wi t h
por t i ons of t he pr el i mi nar y wor k al r eady compl et ed.
As a si de benef i t , our pr oposal woul d ai d subst ant i al l y i n i mpr ovi ng t he economi c
st at us of sever al of t he st at e s smal l er count i es.
We l ear ned r ecent l y t hat your t ask f or ce i s t o pr esent a l i st of pr oposed opt i ons t hi s
Fr i day. I n vi ew of t hi s, we ar e emai l i ng you t hi s br i ef f or possi bl e i ncl usi on, and wi l l
f ol l ow up wi t h har d copi es.

Backgr ound

Gr oundwor k i n t hi s ar ea was act ual l y begun i n t he ear l y 1960s,
and i t shoul d be possi bl e t o capi t al i ze on t hi s ear l i er wor k t o speed up
t he pr ocess consi der abl y. . . .
I n 1963, a Uni t ed St at es St udy Commi ssi on r epor t ed on a pl an f or
t he devel opment of l and and wat er r esour ces of Sout heast er n r i ver
basi ns, i ncl udi ng t he Appal achi col a, Chat t ahoochee and Fl i nt Ri ver
basi ns i n Geor gi a. Si x possi bl e r eser voi r si t es i n t hese basi ns wer e
st udi ed.
The St udy Commi ssi on r ecommended const r uct i on of t hr ee of t hese
si t es l ocat ed wi t hi n t he ei ght -count y ar ea of what was t hen t he
Cent r al Geor gi a Ar ea Pl anni ng and Devel opment Commi ssi on: t he
Lower Auchumpkee Pr oj ect i n Tayl or and Cr awf or d count i es, t he
Page 93
Muckal ee Pr oj ect l ocat ed i n Schl ey Count y, and t he Ki nchaf oonee
Pr oj ect i n our t hr ee count i es of Webst er , St ewar t and Mar i on.
Thi s r ecommendat i on was seconded by t he Ar ea Pl anni ng and
Devel opment Commi ssi on, whose t empor ar y chai r man at t he t i me
was Geor gi a Sen. J i mmy Car t er .
As smal l count i es wi t h l i mi t ed st af f and r esour ces, we ar e not abl e t o
chr oni cl e t he hi st or i es of al l of t hese pr oposed r eser voi r s -- or of t he
ot her t hr ee t hat wer e st udi ed: Spr ewel l Bl uf f , Lazer Cr eek and Lower
Fl i nt . The pur pose of t hi s document i s t o concent r at e on
Ki nchaf oonee, f or whi ch we do have a body of knowl edge, as an
exampl e of how t he st at e coul d ut i l i ze r esear ch al r eady done t o speed
up t he r eser voi r pl anni ng and const r uct i on pr ocess -- whi l e pr ovi di ng
much-needed l ocal and r egi onal economi c st i mul us as an added
benef i t . Wi t h t hat i n mi nd. . . .
Fol l owi ng t he t wo r ecommendat i ons t o pur sue const r uct i on of
Ki nchaf oonee Lake, t he U. S. Depar t ment of Commer ce Economi c
Devel opment Devel opment Admi ni st r at i on f unded f our separ at e,
det ai l ed st udi es: a 1972 over vi ew, a 1973 eval uat i on of hydr ol ogy,
soi l s and geol ogy, a pr el i mi nar y eval uat i on of envi r onment al i mpact
i n 1974, and a 1975 devel opment i mpact st udy.
These st udi es ar e avai l abl e and shoul d speed up consi der abl y t he
pr ocess of devel opi ng Lake Ki nchaf oonee as a sur f ace wat er sour ce,
shoul d t he st at e deci de t o go i n t hi s di r ect i on. And, whi l e we have no
di r ect knowl edge, we woul d assume t hat si mi l ar mat er i al s ar e
avai l abl e f or t he ot her pr oposed r eser voi r s. ( We do have some
knowl edge of t he pr oposed Lazer Cr eek r eser voi r i n Tal bot Count y
and f eel t hat i t woul d f i t t he same cr i t er i a appl i ed t o t he t hr ee
r eser voi r s ment i oned ear l i er .)
Lake Ki nchaf oonee
Lake Ki nchaf oonee woul d be cr eat ed by a dam a f ew mi l es nor t hwest
of Pr est on i n Webst er Count y. Wat er woul d back up f or sever al mi l es
i nt o Mar i on Count y t owar d Buena Vi st a, and nor t hwest war d i nt o
St ewar t Count y. The l ake woul d be about 10 mi l es l ong and one mi l e
wi de, and woul d cover 4,450 acr es. The ar ea whi ch woul d be
i nundat ed i s most l y woodl and and r el ocat i ons shoul d be mi nor .

Whi l e or i gi nal l y cont empl at ed as a sour ce f or f l ood cont r ol and
Page 94
r ecr eat i on, i t shoul d be r el at i vel y si mpl e t o change t he pr i mar y
f unct i on of Ki nchaf oonee t o t hat of a sur f ace wat er r eser voi r .
Thi s coul d be one of a ser i es of such l akes, connect ed by comput er t o anal yze
weat her , r ai nf al l and ot her dat a and aut omat i cal l y r el ease wat er as necessar y t o
suppor t t he st at e s over al l wat er syst em.
A cor ol l ar y benef i t of t hi s par t i cul ar l ake woul d be t he pr ovi si on of a
si gni f i cant sour ce of much-needed r evenue f or Webst er , St ewar t and
Mar i on count i es. The or i gi nal Ki nchaf oonee pr oposal cal l ed f or f our r ecr eat i onal
compl exes t o i ncl ude mar i nas, wet and dr y boat st or age, pi cni c
ar eas, r est aur ant s and ot her r et ai l act i vi t i es.
Gi ven t he r api d expansi on of For t Benni ng and ot her ar eas j ust t o
t he nor t h, t he l ake al so coul d be a pr i me l ocat i on f or
l akesi de f i r st -and-second home and r et i r ement communi t i es -- r i gi dl y
cont r ol l ed by a t hr ee-count y zoni ng aut hor i t y t o pr event t he t ype of
hel t er -skel t er gr owt h t hat has damaged ot her l akes i n t he ar ea.
One woul d ant i ci pat e t he same t ype of r egi onal economi c st i mul us f r om ot her l akes i n
t he ser i es.

Recommendat i on
As ment i oned ear l i er , we r epr esent t hr ee smal l count i es wi t h bol d
i deas but f ew r esour ces wi t h whi ch t o car r y t hem out . Si nce t i mi ng i s
essent i al , we pr opose t hat t he St at e of Geor gi a i ni t i at e i mmedi at el y a
st udy t o st udy t he f easi bi l i t y of our pr oposal as i t appl i es t o bot h
Ki nchaf oonee Lake and t he ot her r eser voi r s ment i oned i n t he 1963
St udy Commi ssi on r ecommendat i ons.

Respect f ul l y submi t t ed,
Geor ge Moor e
J oe Lee Wi l l i ams
Geor ge Neal
Page 95

Page 96
Memo To: Governors Water Contingency Task Force
From: Frank Carl, Science Advisor, Savannah Riverkeeper, Inc.
Tonya Bonitatibus, Riverkeeper and Executive Director, Savannah Riverkeeper, Inc
Re: November 23, 2009 Report from the Task Force
Given the Governors assigned timeline for the task force we can understand the accelerated
schedule for providing information. Unfortunately, that accelerated schedule will inevitably lead
to errors in the final product. We wish to take this opportunity to provide some input to
minimize the errors and political fallout that are bound to happen with such an accelerated
schedule. Maybe it should be impressed upon the Governor as the old saying goes that failure
to plan on your part does not constitute an emergency on my part.
At any rate we recognize that the Governor is simply providing himself with some alternatives
that he should have provided himself much earlier instead of relying totally on winning the legal
option. Unfortunately, taking a negotiated option off the table as a potential solution to the
problem is a mistake. It would be very informative if we could compare the supply volumes and
costs of a negotiated use of Lanier to the other options being considered. At this point we can
only assume that the negotiated option would provide more water more cheaply than any other
option except conservation. But of course that option cannot be evaluated in the current context
because the Governor has taken it off the table.
It is also obvious that the task force has been tasked to consider only the economic drivers
involved and to ignore the need for water for the health and welfare of the people of Georgia.
Indeed, that priority has been prominent in the water planning process from the beginning back
in 2005 when the mission statement put the economy ahead of the health and welfare of the
people of Georgia. The mission statement for the Water Council states, "Georgia manages water
resources in a sustainable manner to support the states economy, to protect public health and
natural systems, and to enhance the quality of life for all citizens." We need to get our priorities
straight, starting now. We should use water to support the economy, but lets make sure that it is
not at the expense of the people.
Maybe it is time to stop feeding the ravenous growth machine of the metro area, the growth that
keeps developers happy but saddles the people of the metro area with sprawl, transportation
issues, bad air, higher taxes, and a myriad of land use and water quality problems. Maybe it is
time to allow the development in the metro area to run up against its natural constraints, a finite
water supply and a 90 minute commute. Maybe its time to allow development to follow the
resources instead of commandeering the resources of others to allow us to continue to play the
same old game, growing metro Atlanta.
The Task Force has made its conference with the Georgia Water Coalition a prominent part of its
November 23 report, leaving the impression that the input of conservation groups had been
included in the report. Unfortunately, the report did not use the information provided by the
Georgia Water Coalition in its report and the inclusion of the GWC in the Task Force report
seems to be just window dressing. In fact, the GWC has calculated that the water saved by
Page 97
earnest conservation efforts in the metro district (and some already exist) would be much greater
than the 35 MGD used in the Task Force report. Indeed, the GWC indicates that a combination
of conservation and good faith negotiation with Alabama and Florida could easily produce
enough water for current needs in the metro district. The inflated predictions of future needs
used by the Task Force should be brought into perspective by the constraints mentioned in the
previous paragraph. The growth industry needs to branch out and follow the resources. The
current study should be used not only to find other sources of water but to understand the limits
of growth in the metro area. The information the Task Force is generating can help us do that.
With the possible exception of West Point Lake the control options mentioned (Lake Burton,
Lake Hartwell and the Tennessee River) would essentially be stealing someone elses water.
And taking water from West Point Lake would re-open the same can of worms that the Task
Force is trying to close. It would involve negotiations with Alabama and Florida.
Taking water from Lake Burton would likely involve negotiations with the Savannah/Upper
Ogeechee Water Planning Council and they just passed (unanimously) a resolution to ban
interbasin transfers. While the infrastructure for transferring the water may be relatively cheap,
in this case the water itself may end up being politically expensive. In addition, it appears that
currently a transfer from Lake Burton to the Chattahoochee would be illegal. Taking water from
Lake Hartwell and transferring it into the North Georgia Metro District would also be illegal
within Georgia, but more importantly might be challenged by South Carolina and by Georgia
cities downstream (Augusta and Savannah).
Taking water from the Tennessee River is fraught with a myriad of problems, least of which is
the expense. First, we do not think that it will matter much if the state line is successfully
challenged to gain access to the river. Tennessee River water is highly allocated to a variety of
uses downstream and downstream includes AL, TN, KY, IL, MO, AR, MS, and LA. Now, that
is a lawsuit. While it may be possible to physically control water from the four sources under the
control option, it may be much more difficult to legally control that water. We advise you to
consider these comments when prioritizing the control options for the Governor. In fact, our
advice would be to forget the control options. They are not really options.
We know that the Governor is partial to building reservoirs to capture water that is available in
times of excess rainfall to be used in times of drought. While this mechanism can provide water
to a water-starved city, there are major disadvantages to building reservoirs. First, the cheapest
mechanism for building a reservoir is to dam a stream. Creating a reservoir where a stream once
flowed completely changes not only the aquatic ecosystem but also the terrestrial ecosystem
surrounding the new reservoir. Re-equilibration of an ecosystem takes generations, maybe
centuries. These changes to nature should not be taken lightly. Second, there will be
considerable pressure from the growth industry to use these newly built reservoirs as real estate
amenities. I urge you to resist that pressure for two reasons. (1) Development on the shores of
these new reservoirs will cause water quality problems that will have to be treated before the
water can be used as a drinking water source. That treatment can become expensive. Indeed,
New York City calculated that it would be cheaper for them to buy the watershed in the Catskills
that supplies their drinking water than it was to treat the drinking water if they allowed
development on the shores of their reservoir. (2) Making the land around the reservoir available
Page 98
for real estate development will eventually lead to pressure to manage the water resource as a
real estate resource. If you will be acquiring land to use for a reservoir for water supply, it would
be disingenuous to allow the growth industry to drive up the cost of the water supply while
profiting from development of land that was acquired for other reasons. And finally, if
reservoirs are to be built, we recommend dedicated off-stream reservoirs where water is pumped
into the reservoir during periods of excess and the reservoir does not interrupt the flow of an
existing stream.
We wish you luck in providing a priority list for the Governor. We look forward to seeing that
list. And we appreciate the opportunity to comment on your November 23 report.
Page 99
~ 1 ~
Tim Lowe December 7, 2009
Co-Chair
Georgia Water Contingency Planning Task Force
Dear Mr Lowe:
Desalinization & Hydrogen Production System Using Wave Energy
We wish to submit to your Task Force, for its consideration, preliminary details of a technical
solution that we have developed that we believe will have application to the challenges being
addressed by the Task Force.
Our solution, which will generate multiple outcomes, utilizes floats, placed in suitable, designated
ocean areas that can generate:
x freshwater through Reverse Osmosis;
x hydrogen gas from the freshwater;
x electrical power to the grid; or
x for powering H2 production.
x With production of 250 million gallons of freshwater per day, the electric power cost
savings would be $3,000,000 per day.
x No greenhouse gases, including CO
2
Our technology platform is a direct competitor to desalination technology, however, it has
significant operational and capital cost advantages over that technology.
We are preparing to embark on proof-of-concept trials to validate the performance of our
technology and would welcome the opportunity to partner with the State of Georgia in this
endeavor.
While we understand that your Task Force will not be recommending the adoption of specific
technology solutions, we would, however, like this technology to be considered for its relevance
to the challenges being addressed by the Task Force.
We would welcome the opportunity to discuss this opportunity further with you or your staff
team.
Sincerely,
Robert Rigby Milton R. Seiler
Inventor Physicist
Attachment: See below
Page 100
~ 2 ~
Proprietary Information. Patent pending. Not to be disclosed outside the U.S.
Government without permission of the author.
Desalinization & Hydrogen Production System
Using Wave Energy
Robert Rigby, Inventor
Milton R. Seiler, Physicist
Page 101
~ 3 ~
Overview of Technology Solution:
Floats, placed in suitable, designated ocean areas, can generate:
x Freshwater through Reverse Osmosis;
x Hydrogen gas from the freshwater;
x Electrical Power to the grid; or
x For powering H2 production.
Freshwater Production Details:
Reverse Osmosis requires about 900 psi to force seawater through the filters.
Consider a basic, 14 sq. ft. float. As the wave crest applies lifting force to the float, the first 1
foot of crest rise will generate 14 x 64 x 1 = 900 lbs. force.
If the float is connected rigidly to a reverse osmosis filter line of 1 sq. inch area, the pressure on
the filter will begin to exceed 900 psi after a 1 foot rise. Assume wave crests occurring every 5
seconds (12 strokes per minute).
2 ft crest 6 ft. crest
Water flow:
Cu. inch per stroke 12 60
Cu. inch per day 207,360 1,036,800
Gallons per day 893 4464
Freshwater gallons per day 179 893
(20% recovery. This allows for periodic maintenance, reduced wave crests.)
Page 102
~ 4 ~
Convert a 1 Million-Gallon/day System to Production of H2.
System designed to maximize H2 production. Electric power provided from grid.
Max. H2 per day, kg. 4E+05 (72 kg. of H2 per day from a 14 sq.ft. float)
Max. H2 per day, liters 4.5E+09
Electric power cost, per day. $2,000,000
(This causes concern. Can electric power be produced directly by the floats? YES)
2 ft. crest 6 ft. crest
Required float area, acres 1.8 0.36
One kg. of H2 is about 11,400 liters. One kg. of H2 is approx. energy equivalent of one gallon
of gasoline. (per DOE)
Use Designated Floats for Electric Power Generation
For direct sale to Power Company.
For driving the H2 generators, saving cost of electric power.
Consider a 14 sq. ft. float in 2 ft. swells.
Generate 1800 ft. lbs. energy per stroke, 12 strokes per minute.
1800 x 12 = 21600 ft. lbs. per minute. Pump to a 25 ft. head. (This is an arbitrary height, just
for illustration purposes) 21600/25 = 864 lbs. of water delivered per minute.
This equals 13.5 cu. ft./minute, or 100 gallons per minute.
Use Harris Turbine with a head of 25 feet. This would deliver 230 watts, or 0.23 kwhr. of
energy per hour. A 14 sq. ft. float will deliver 3 kg. H2 per hour, requiring 147 kwhr. of energy.
Hence we will need 147/0.23 = 639 floats, 14 sq. ft. each, to deliver the required power for one
additional float.
Page 103
~ 5 ~
Page 104
~ 6 ~
Reverse Osmosis flow, cu. inch, versus area of pipe,a, in sq. inch, and float area, A, in sq.
Optimum pipe area = A/14 sq. in., with A in sq. ft.
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5
Pipe area, sq. inch
V
o
l
u
m
e

o
f

f
l
o
w
,

c
u
.

i
n
c
h
The above analysis assumes a 2-ft crest
Theoretical Predictions of the Wave Energy provided by analysis at a university in Florida
Assume 2.5 meter/second group velocity, 0.3 meter amplitude
Energy per meter of crest length = 96,208 kilojoules per day
This would produce 411771 kilojoules per day from a float 14 ft long.
Producing H2 at 100% purity the yield would be 3.5 kg. of H2 per day.
Conclusions.
A 14 sq. ft. float, requiring that it produce its own electricity for its H2 production, would
produce 72 kg. / 640 = 0.11 kg of H2. (Remember that a 14 sq. ft. float would produce 72 kg. per
day if all the power were supplied from the grid. It would take the output of 640 floats, each 14
sq. ft., to produce the same electric power)
0.11/3.5 = 0.031. Hence we are extracting about 3% of the wave energy.
Page 105
~ 7 ~
Some Options for System Design and Production
Baseline. 8960 sq. ft. of floats, 2 ft. crests, 20% freshwater recovery. Scale directly to other float
areas. (this represents 640 floats, each of area 14 sq. ft.)
Option 1. Produce freshwater only. 114,278 gallons per day. Income $1485 per day @$0.013
per gallon
Option 2. Use all freshwater production to drive H2 generators. Pay power company for electric.
About 46,000 kg of H2 per day. Income $230,000 per day at $5 per kg. Expense $225,792 per
day for electric power at $0.10 per kwhr.
Option 3. Produce H2 only. Produce necessary electric power from 8946 sq. ft. of floats.
Freshwater produced from remaining 14 sq. ft of floats, driving 72 kg. of H2 production per day.
$360 income per day @ $5 per kg.
Option 4. Electric power production only. Sell 3533 kwhr per day to grid. Income: $177 per
day at $0.05 per kwhr.
Option 5. Various combinations of the above.
Other cost issues. Staff requirements. Maintenance of the floats. Initial investment. Reverse
osmosis maintenance. Turbine maintenance.
Summary of Potential Income Per Day
1 million gallon/day system. All power from floats. 20% recovery
Type of System Freshwater only
system
Option 1.
Hydrogen only system
Option 3
Electric Power only.
Option 4
Sale of freshwater @
$0.013 per gallon
$13,000 per day $0 (no sales) $ 0
Sale of hydrogen @ $5
per kg.
$0 $3150 per day $0
Sale of Electric power @
$0.05 per kwhr.
$0 $0 $1550 per day @ $0.05 per
kwhr.
Page 106
~ 8 ~
Suggested Feasibility Demonstration
Assume 2 ft. swell, every 5 seconds, with a 14 sq. ft. float.
Use wave tank or selected marine facility.
Drive a 1sq. inch line into reverse osmosis filter to produce freshwater.
Produce about 890 gallons per day (about 140 liters per hour).
Filter the freshwater.
Use Hgenerator model LM-200, or equivalent, to generate H2 gas
Feed LM-200 with 0.01 liter of freshwater per hour.
Generate about 12 liters of H2 per hour.
Dry the H2.
Demonstrate burning of H2.
Research & Design Issues
Float Design. Materials, operational requirements, maintenance.
RO Filter Design. Flat, spiral, material, maintenance.
Recovery Ratio. Trade-offs between recovery ratio and costs.
Overall System Design. Optimization for requirements and locality.
Hydrogen generation. Intended uses, requirements, storage.
Electric power generation. For grid, for H2 generation, other.
Site selection. Coordination with agencies and communities.
Safety. Hurricane shutdown. Worker procedures.
Page 107
~ 9 ~
An Alternative System. Use Solar Cells to Produce the Electricity. Assumes 14 watts average
from each square foot of solar cell.
Analysis of Freshwater Production with Floats Covered with Solar Panels
Float
area,
acres
Fresh-
water
per day,
gallons,
20%
recovery
(M =
million)
Income
from
sale of
water,
per day,
$0.013 per
gal.
Potential
kg of H2
per day
(would
require
grid
supply)
Reqd
kwhr
for full
H2
produc-
tion. per
day
Max
kwhr
per 4
hour day
available
from
solar cells
Income
from
sale of
electric,
per day,
$0.10
per
kwhr
Income
from
sale of
H2, $6
per kwhr,
per day
Total
H2
produced
per day, kg
Total
sales, per day.
Choose
H2 or
Electric)
(M =
million)
1.8 1 M $13.000 406,000 20 M 4390 $439 $538 90 $13,439-13,538
50 27.8 M $361,000 11.3 M 553 M 122,000 $12,200 $14,900 2483 $373,200-375,900
100 55.6 M $722,000 22.6 M 1110 M 244,000 $24,400 $29,900 4966 $746,400-751,900
500 278 M $3.61 M 113 M 5530 M 1.22 M $122,00
0
$149,000 24833 $3.73 M-3.76 M
The solar cells, occupying the same area as the total float area, can only supply 0.00022 of the
total required power to produce the H2 that is potentially available from the freshwater generated
by the floats.
Page 108
~ 10 ~ Page 109
Georgi a
Ri ver
Net work

126 S. Milledge Avenue
Suite E3
Athens, GA 30605
Phone: 706-549-4508
Fax: 706-549-7791
info@garivers.org
http:/ / www.garivers.org

STAFF
April I ngle
D oug Barnes
Ben Emanuel
Jesslyn Shi elds
D ana Skel t on

M I SSI ON:
Georgia Ri ver N et work is
working t o ensure a clean
wat er legacy by engaging and
empoweri ng Georgi ans t o
prot ect and rest ore our rivers
f rom t he mount ains t o t he
coast .

GOAL S:
More people invol ved in
prot ect ing and managing
Georgias wat ers

I ncreasi ng awareness of
t he issues t hat t hreat en t he
heal t h of our wat ers

Sharing resources t o
improve t he prot ect ion of
Georgias wat ers

Providing t he means t o
advocat e f or t he healt h of
our wat ers

November 20, 2009
Georgia River Network thanks you for the opportunity to provide our input as you
develop contingency recommendations in response to Judge Magnusons ruling.
Georgia River Network represents over 600 Georgia citizens and 30+ river protection
organizations.
We provide these recommendations in addition to the comments submitted by the
Georgia Water Coalition, of which we are a member.
With Judge Magnusons decision, Metro Atlanta has an opportunity to embrace
sustainable water management to support future water supply needs. To embrace this
opportunity, Georgia River Network suggests the Task Force:
1. Focus strategies on aggressive use of water conservation and efficiency measures
which will create a hidden reservoir of water at a price per gallon significantly
less than other options, creating a true Culture of Conservation in Georgia.
2. Make reauthorization and reallocation of the water from Lake Lanier a central
component of future water supply plans.
3. Use water demand projections that realistically reflect Metro-Atlantas future water
needs.
4. Not deprive downstream communities of the chance for future economic growth,
prosperity and ecological health.
1. Focus strategies on aggressive use of water conservation and efficiency
measures which will create a hidden reservoir of water at a price per gallon
significantly less than other options.
Metro Atlanta could save between 130-210 million gallons of water per day by
implementing water efficiency and conservation. Permitted Lake Lanier
withdrawals equal 178 million gallons per day.
New reservoirs should be a last resort because they seriously impact downstream
communities, fish and wildlife, property owners, and the recreational value of our
streams, they are expensive, and they take a long time to provide drinking water.
Dams can cost $4,000 per 1,000 gallons of capacity, while efficiency measures
range from $0.46 to $250 per 1,000 gallons saved or new capacity. Before
Capture and Control strategies are pursued, aggressive use of water
conservation should be pursued first.
According to American Rivers and their Hidden Reservoir report:
Metro Atlanta could save up to $700 million by pursuing water efficiency
to secure water supply as compared to building new dams.
This water savings could provide water for 790,000 to 1,280,000 new
residents.
Page 110
Metro Atlanta communities consume, on average, 89 gallons per capita per day (gpcd). A
conserving household consumes 45.2 gpcd. Brisbane, Australia consumes 36 gpcd with the
same high quality of life as Metro Atlanta.
New York City completed the worlds largest toilet replacement program during 1994-1997
(three years) resulting in 70-90 MGD of savings through the replacement of 1.3 million toilets.
The program saved NYC over $200 million by deferring expansion of supply and wastewater
infrastructure.
Here are the numbers on how water conservation and efficiency can meet Metro Atlantas water
supply needs with 5 proven water efficiency methods:
Low
Projection
of Water
Saved
High
Projection
of Water
Saved
Stop Leaks in the water utility distribution pipes.
x 117 MGD are lost each day to leaks and unaccounted for
uses in Metro Atlanta
29.34 58.68
Price water to encourage efficient use.
x Up to 22% decrease in consumption is possible through
conservation pricing.
53.79 78.89
Meter all uses to measure water consumption.
x Most multi-family/commercial includes water costs in
monthly rent/fees thereby eliminating market signals to
conserve.
x A 15% savings can be secured through this policy alone.
5.87 9.39
Retrofit all buildings with water efficient fixtures.
x Up to 35% decrease in water use possible through
retrofits alone.
36.35 54.52
Landscape to minimize waste.
x On average 30% of household drinking water is used to
water lawns, tree, and shrubs. On average 50% of that
water is wasted.
x At least 25% savings is possible through proven
programs.
8.41 12.62
Total MGD Saved
* Source: American Rivers
133.76 MGD 214.10 MGD
2. Make reauthorization and reallocation of the water from Lake Lanier a central
component of future water supply plans.
We recommend the Task Force coordinate its efforts with the other prongs of the Governors
response strategy to negotiate with Florida and Alabama and gain Congressional reallocation
and reauthorization of Lake Lanier. If Metro Atlanta commits to using its water resources as
efficiently as possible, gaining authorization of Lake Lanier to use for water supply purposes is
an economical and environmentally sound path to pursue. The authorization should also
provide for healthy downstream flows, require efficient use of the resource, and ensure that
water supply not be prioritized over other authorized uses.
Page 111
3. Use water demand projections that realistically reflect Metro-Atlantas future water
needs.
The Metropolitan North Georgia Water Planning District water demand projections do not
plan for reasonable decreases in per capita consumption or overall consumption. The Pacific
Institute criticized the Metro Districts population and demand projections for being over-
stated. These same demand projections were used to determine the gap in water supply for
2012.
4. Not deprive downstream communities of the chance for future economic growth,
prosperity and ecological health.
The Task Force should be keenly aware of how they make decisions and how their decisions
will affect the rest of the state because it is perceived as heavily weighted toward Metro
Atlanta interests and is making decisions in meetings that are closed to the public.
Solutions to Metro Atlantas water supply needs must protect the water supplies of
downstream communities, protect taxpayers from costly and unnecessary water supply
projects and protect the health of our rivers, fisheries and wildlife.
Metro Atlanta has a significant opportunity to meet this challenge with inventive, progressive,
cost-effective, and timely strategies like Seattle and Boston have, and also like our own Cobb and
DeKalb counties have. We urge you to pursue those strategies too.
Thank you again for this opportunity to provide recommendations.
Sincerely,
April Ingle, Executive Director
Page 112
Page 113
Page 114
Page 115
GEORGIA FARM BUREAU WATER POLICY HIGHLIGHTS
We urge farmer representation
x Georgias river basins have differing characteristics, and decisions should be made on a
regional basis by the stakeholders in each particular region.
x Farmers should be represented and hold seats on all committees, boards, and councils that
impact the use of water in Georgia.
We believe the right to use water is a private property right subject to state regulation only
to the extent necessary to protect downstream users.
x Landowners have the basic right to use water located on (or under) their property. We
oppose assertions that all citizens have an equal right to use water located on private
property.
x If the right to use water is restricted by the state, landowners should be compensated for the
loss.
x We oppose lowering the 100,000 gallons/day threshold for requiring agricultural
withdrawal permits.
Farmers should have priority during times of drought.
x We oppose any change to OCGA 12-5-102 which states that during emergency periods of
water shortage, the director shall give first priority to providing water for human
consumption and second priority to farm use.
x Of all stakeholders, farmers are most at risk. Without timely access to irrigation water,
farmers lose their total investment.
x Once basic human needs are met, farmers should have priority for water use.
x Irrigation costs are effective incentives for farmers to conserve. Farmers will regulate
themselves because of high fuel and electricity costs.
x Agriculture is Georgias largest industry; damage to agriculture adversely affects the
economy of the entire state.
We support all reasonable avenues for solving our water needs.
x Water conservation incentives should be enacted or broadened that would encourage
landowners to voluntarily reduce water usage.
x Ways to increase our water supply should become a priority equal to conservation. We
must find effective ways to bring new reservoirs into use, whether it be streamlining the
process or utilizing different types of reservoirs (off stream reservoirs, increasing capacity
of existing reservoirs, more farm ponds, aquifer storage & recovery, desalination, etc.)
x We support the use of existing reservoirs for electric power generation, irrigation,
navigation, flood control, and municipal water supplies. We oppose releases of water that
are not in accord with those uses.
We support reasonable water transfers.
x We support limitations on inter-basin and intra-basin transfers of water to maintain
adequate supplies for agriculture.
x The needs of donor regions and basins must be protected.
The state should fund water planning entities.
x Public funding sources must be utilized to meet the data collection and staff needs
associated with the development, implementation, and ongoing management of the water
plan.
x We oppose the creation of huge bureaucracies to manage Georgias water, and water
planning entities should not have taxing authority.
November 25, 2009
Page 116
Page 117
Page 118
Page 119
Page 120
Page 121
Page 122
Page 123
Page 124
Page 125
Page 126

The Georgia Water Coalitions Essential Steps to Ensure Sustainable Water Supply for
Metro Atlanta

Water must remain a public resource in Georgia, regardless of where we ultimately get
additional supply.

Any water management strategy for metro Atlanta must not deprive downstream
communities of the chance for future economic growth and prosperity.

Water management must be adaptive, based on sound science to ensure water
withdrawals are timed and distributed to meet all instream flow and consumptive needs
while allowing for uncertainty in the face of droughts, floods, and climate change.

The Georgia Water Coalition supports the aggressive use of water conservation first,
which will create a hidden reservoir of water at a price per gallon significantly less than
that of constructing new reservoirs.

Aggressive conservation measures are those above and beyond those included in
the Metropolitan North Georgia Water Planning Districts regional water plans,
including funding to fix leaking pipes and aging infrastructure, requiring low
impact development techniques, toilet retrofits, submetering, etc., and should
include interim and final deadlines to make sure that goals are reached. The
Metro District can save millions of gallons of water, create new jobs and spend
less money in the long term by implementing these measures now.

The Georgia Water Coalition is ready to work with state and federal agencies to
secure funding necessary to repair aging infrastructure as well as support other
aggressive conservation measures.

The Georgia Water Coalition supports maximizing the use of existing water supply
reservoirs, particularly Lake Lanier and Lake Allatoona.

The cheapest and most readily available sources of water are Lake Lanier and
Lake Allatoona. Both must be controlled in a way that insures healthy
downstream flows and minimizes withdrawal needs by maximizing both water
conservation and water and energy efficiency.

The Georgia Water Coalition is willing to offer whatever assistance is needed to
secure an agreement between the Governors or through Congress that assures
metro Atlanta the continued use of Lakes Lanier and Allatoona at sustainable
withdrawal levels.

Page 127

We must explore the feasibility of converting existing reservoirs built for other purposes
to serve in part or in full as water supply sources. As part of a comprehensive assessment
of these existing sources, quarries should also be explored as potential water storage
facilities.

Until the above options have been fully exhausted, new reservoirs, aquifer storage and
recovery, desalinization, and interbasin transfers should not be pursued. All are
expensive, time-intensive, and/or untested, and they are potentially detrimental to aquatic
ecosystems and downstream users.

New reservoirs and other supply sources will saddle state and local economies with
massive debt in an already difficult economic climate.

New reservoirs and other supply sources cannot be constructed by the July 2012 deadline
set by Judge Magnuson, even in the absence of any downstream or environmental
opposition.

In order to unite all Georgians in a common water management strategy, we must codify
the statewide water plans suggestions for interbasin transfers and reservoirs into statute,
so that these suggestions become binding principles that will govern future water supply
proposals.
Page 128
Page 129
Page 130
Page 131
Page 132
Page 133
Page 134
Page 135
Page 136
Page 137
Page 138
Page 139
Page 140
Page 141
Page 142
Page 143
Page 144
Page 145
Page 146
The WaterOptimizer makes the
mosI of woIer supp||es
Designed by water conservation
professionals, the WaterOptimizer is
a smart system that allows utilities
better control over water resource
use. It allows home or business
owners to use the water they need,
but no more.
The WaterOptimizer is designed for use by Regional Water Utilities and
individual homeowners to monitor conditions in the water distribution
system through custom designed software.
A seamless blend of new and tested technologies ensures that the
system works whether someone is home or not.
The WaterOptimizer provides a
real management option
For Water Managers: The WaterOptimizer allows water managers
to eliminate peaks and manage community supplies, while it provides
users all the water they need for landscape maintenance.
Residents and Businesses: The WaterOptimizer connects to
residential or individual irrigation systems, replacing any existing
controller. Although connection is voluntary, local water utilities can
then manage the system by allowing individual systems to operate, or
by re-directing irrigation to times when there is less demand.
Regardless of the user, the WaterOptmizer protects system water
pressure, provides the resource where its needed. When its not
needed, its saved for another day.
The WaterOptimizer operates
in 6 ways
1
2
3
4
5
6
Weather
As the weather changes, the WaterOptimizer responds. If its
raining, the irrigation system simply will not activate.
Sensor
Each system has moisture sensors located throughout the
property. Its easy to set a moisture level for the zone. When the
moisture level is reached, the system moves to the next zone, or
simply doesnt activate.
Reclaimed Water (Force-on)
Beyond conventional systems, the WaterOptimizer can be applied
to the reclaimed water system. With the WaterOptimizer, utilities
can manage reclaimed water like the valuable resource it is.
Pressure
The WaterOptimizer monitors pressure in the system. If
the systems water pressure is too low, the WaterOptimizer
automatically initiates a program to manage irrigation (a
nonessential use) so that essential needs are met. Once pressure
is restored, the irrigation system will continue where it left off.
Fire Support
In case of emergency, the re department can interrupt irrigation
to increase water pressurewith a phone call.
Emergencies (optional)
During emergencies like oods, hurricanes, or tornados, this
system has the capability to sound an audible alarm that
will alert citizens and improve emergency
service response time.
www.Water-Optimizer.com
Regional Water
Utility Central
Control
Homeowner Irrigation
2-Way Communication
Weather
Station
(Optional)
Moisture
Sensor
(Optional)
Pressure
Monitoring
(Optional)
The WaterOptimizer provides
the water thats needed
Every water manager knows that anywhere from 50 75 percent
of water demand goes to irrigation. In most cases, thats far more
than is needed. This use of water for outdoor irrigation combined
with an increase of in-ground irrigation systems has led to
increased water waste.
The Water Optimizer system allows homeowners and water
managers to work together to provide more responsive, better-
focused irrigation to home and business owners, and allows
better monitoring of water use by utilities.
Its OK to irrigate.
Page 148
Page 150
Page 151
Page 152
Page 153
REGIONAL WATER ENTITY
CONCEPT
BACKGROUND
One of the major issues associated with meeting the potential water shortage challenge created by
Judge Magnusons ruling is the efficient and timely access to all available permitted capacity and
the re-allocation of this surplus capacity, wherever it might exist.
An associated challenge is the identification of suitable funding sources necessary to enable
timely and cost effective implementation of all priority conservation and capture options that will
meet not only the short-term goal of filling the potential gap that would arise, should Judge
Magnusons ruling take effect, but also long-term water infrastructure objectives that provide for
ongoing community and industry growth across all of Georgia.
PROPOSAL
It is proposed to establish a Regional Water Entity with powers and authorities that could
include:
taking ownership and full control of unused water permits across the Metropolitan North
Georgia Water Planning District;
re-allocating water permits to ensure timely access to all available permitted resources;
consolidating, by purchasing, the assets of existing water utilities and accept the bonding,
financial and operational obligations associated with the ownership and management these
enterprises;
applying legislated mandates that would compel all water utilities to maximize water
conservation;
setting all fixed and variable water supply rates; and
issuing water bonds to fund future water infrastructure requirements across the
Metropolitan North Georgia Water Planning District as required.
OUTCOMES
one entity to plan, manage, own and deliver water services across the Metropolitan North
Georgia Water Planning District;
immediate access to all surplus permitted capacity for re-allocation to areas of shortfall;
efficiencies of scale and scope; and
district-wide bonding capacity is enhanced.
NEXT STEPS
Conduct a feasibility study into the formation of a Regional Water Entity.
Page 154
Page 155
Page 156
Page 157
RESOLUTION
BY THE SUWANEE-SATILLA WATER COUNCIL OF THE STATE OF GEORGIA
FOR THE HONORABLE SONNY PERDUE, GOVERNOR OF STATE OF GEORGIA
Whereas, the state of Georgia is blessed with many natural resources governed by both the State
and the regions they occupy the mountains of North Georgia, the beaches and marshlands of
the Atlantic coast, and the fruitful plains of South Georgia; and
Whereas, the basic desire of all concerned is to continue the States vibrant growth while
continuing to manage its abundant natural resources properly; and
Whereas, the resources of the State should remain in the locations originally established by
nature, and the water resources should remain in the river basins defined by the various
watersheds around the state; and
Whereas, interbasin transfers fundamentally and irreversibly alter the natural flows in our rivers
and streams, and can harm the long-term prosperity and quality of life in the basin of origin,
species dependent upon specific water flows and quality, and downstream communities and
economies that depend upon flows for drinking water, recreation, navigation, agribusiness,
industry and economic growth; and
Whereas, artificial redistribution of natural resource wealth is not in keeping with the basic
principles of free enterprise;
Now, therefore, we resolve: the Suwannee-Satilla Water Planning Council desires that the
Administration through EPD place a moratorium on establishment of any interbasin transfers
under current law, inside or outside of the MNGWMD, until the water planning process that we
are laboring through, a process authorized by the General Assembly and signed by the Governor
in 2008, is complete.
Attest __________________________________________________________
Chairman, Suwannee-Satilla Water Council, State of Georgia
With copies provided to: The Honorable Lt. Governor Casey Cagle
The Honorable House Speaker Glenn Richardson
Commissioner of Natural Resources Chris Clark
Director of EPD Alan Barnes
Members of the Georgia Senate
Page 158
Members of the Georgia House of Representatives
Page 159
Report Dat e: 5/ 11/ 2009 Full Technical SWAT Performance Repor t at www. irrigat ion. org
6540 Ar l i ngt on Boul evar d Tel : 703.536.7080
Fal l s Chur ch, VA 22042 www.i r r i gat i on.or g
Smar t Wat er Appl i cat i on Technol ogi es ( SWAT) Per f or mance Repor t
Test i ng Agency: Cent er f or I r r i gat i on Technol ogy www.cal i f or ni awat er .or g
Pr oduct : Wat er Opt i mi zer
Pr oduct Type: Cl i mat ol ogi cal l y Based Cont r ol l er
Pr oduct Descr i pt i on: Test ed i n i t s weat her -based mode, t he Wat er Opt i mi zer adj ust s r unt i mes wi t h
an opt i onal wi r el ess r adi o t o a web por t al ser vi ce or l ocal ET dat a ( ex. CI MI S) . The cont r ol l er of f er s
an opt i onal soi l moi st ur e sensor -based mode ( not t est ed; SWAT t est i ng not cur r ent l y avai l abl e) .
SWAT Pr ot ocol * : Tur f and Landscape Equi pment Cl i mat ol ogi cal l y Based Cont r ol l er s 8t h Dr af t Test i ng Pr ot ocol ( Sept . 2008)
The concept of climatologically controlling irrigation systems has an extensive history of scientif ic study and documentation. The
objective of this protocol is to evaluate how well current commercial technology has integrated the scientif ic data into a practical
system that meets the agronomic needs of turf and landscape plants. The evaluation is accomplished by creating a virtual
landscape subjected to a representative climate to evaluate the ability of individual controllers to adequately and ef f iciently irrigate
that landscape. Af ter initial programming and calibration the controller is expected to perf orm without f urther intervention
during the test period. Perf ormance results indicate to what degree the controller maintained root zone moistures within an
acceptable range. I f moisture levels are maintained without def icit, it can be assumed the crop growth and quality will be
adequate. I f moisture levels are maintained without excess it can be assumed that scheduling is ef f icient.
* Al l SWAT pr ot ocol may be vi ewed at www.i r r i gat i on.or g
Wat er Opt i mi zer SWAT Per f or mance Summar y
I r r i gat i on Adequacy I r r i gat i on Excess
Mi ni mum of 6 t est zones: 100% Mi ni mum of 6 t est zones: 0%
Maxi mum of 6 t est zones: 0%
Mean/ Average of 6 t est zones: 0%
Maxi mum of 6 t est zones: 100%
Mean/ Average of 6 t est zones: 100%
Irrigation Adequacy represents how well irrigation
met the needs of the plant material. This ref lects the
percentage of required water f or turf or plant material
supplied by rainf all and controller-scheduled irrigations.
Research suggests that if this value is between 80% and
100%, the acceptable quality of vegetation will be
maintained.
Irrigation Excess represents how much irrigation water
was applied beyond the needs of the plant material. This
ref lects the percentage of water applied in excess of 100%
of required water according to data f rom CI MI S station
# 84 Browns Valley, Yuba during the test period.
Pr oduct Det ai l Suppl i ed by Manuf act ur er
Wat er Opt i mi zer www.wat er -opt i mi zer .com
I nst al l at i on Dat a Sour ce Dat a
Li nk
I ni t i al
Pur chase
Addi t i onal
Har dwar e
Addi t i onal Fees
Replace
existing
controller or
install on a new
system.
SWAT tested with
wireless I nternet link to
CI MI S weather station
# 84. Various weather
stations or web portal
service available.
2-way
wireless
radio using
ZigBee
technology
Purchase price
includes system
to control up to
12 zones
None Monthly/ annual f ee f or
web portal service
Addi t i onal Feat ur es
Zones Ti me of Day Day of Week Ot her I f Dat a Li nk i s
Di scont i nued
Base controls
up to 12 zones,
expandable to
48.
Capable of
restricting
watering during
selected time of
day.
Capable of
restricting
watering days by
selection or
interval.
Modes operate with or without pulse
(cycle-soak)
Four automatic programs with up to
f our start times
Remote over-the-air
f irmware/ program updates
Enclosure designed f or indoor or
outdoor installations
Sensor-based controller mode
included
I f ET link is
discontinued, it may be
used as a standard
irrigation controller.
Page 160
Page 161
Page 162
Page 163
Page 164
Page 165
THE NATURE CONSERVANCY
WATER CONSERVATION PRINCIPLES AND PRACTICES
1. Water is, and must remain, a public resource that requires thoughtful management to
preserve it for current and future needs.
2. Water policy decisions must be based on accurately determining current and future needs
and driven by objective, measurable science.
3. Any water management strategy for metro Atlanta must ensure downstream communities
of guaranteed in-stream flows so as not to deprive them of future economic prosperity.
Reauthorization of Lake Lanier, expansion of existing reservoirs, and using existing, but
abandoned quarries are all techniques that keep in place current flow standards.
4. The Nature Conservancy (TNC) considers the current Statewide Water Management
planning process one of the best examples of stakeholder water planning in the country.
The Regional Water Councils setup through this process should continue to serve in their
current format because any policy decisions affecting metro Atlantas water usage have
upstream and downstream implications. Utilizing these Councils, (appointed in part by the
Governor) and the Science and Engineering Advisory Panel (an EPD appointed, nationally
recognized scientists) not only ensures that policy decisions have statewide sounding
boards and sound scientific footing, but it demonstrates to the federal government and the
states of Alabama and Florida that others outside the metro Atlanta community are being
heard.
The two specific recommendations that affect upstream and downstream users outside
metro Atlanta are the contraction of new reservoirs and inter-basin transfers. The Nature
Conservancy specifically recommends the following:
x New Reservoirs cost, political viability, and timeframe are all critical factors that
should make new reservoirs the option of last resort. Additionally, the fact there are
major consumptive losses in evaporation and the need to move the water to Atlanta
makes this an inefficient process.
x Inter-Basin Transfers - Georgia should not invest in expensive, time consuming
water capture and control policies. Moving water around does not solve the inherent
problem AND it denies economic development opportunities to those communities
who lose water in a transfer.
5. Georgians should expect credible, cost-effective, politically viable, and timely solutions to
current and future water supply issues.
Water conservation is a goal that all parties interested in solving Georgias water dilemma
can agree on yet methods to capture this goal range from building new reservoirs to
implementing water efficiency measures. All potential solutions have different costs,
timelines, effectiveness, and political viability. GA EPD and CH2MHILL estimated that
reservoir construction can cost $4,000 per 1,000 gallons captured and this does not take
into account ongoing maintenance and operations costs. In contrast, various water
efficiency measures can cost between $0.46 and $250 per 1,000 gallons saved. Controls
can (and will) be built into whichever solution, or variety of solutions, is adopted. For
example, dam operation manuals control the release of water while tax incentives and other
public policy prescriptions can control water efficiency goals.
While there are many examples of local governments across the country including those in
Georgia, realizing water savings through conservation, The Nature Conservancy has on
Page 166
the ground experience working with the Flint River Soil and Water District and the
Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) to engage the agricultural community in
southwest Georgia along the Flint River in an effort to conserve water through new,
efficient technologies. Farmers, incentivized through Farm Bill cost-share programs and
realized savings on water withdrawal costs, are changing their behavior which is
conserving more water. Drawing on our experience in southwest Georgia, TNC
recommends the following conservation tools and weve provided the context that
parallels our agricultural work with each specific recommendation.
A. REDUCE WATER LOSS BY FIXING LEAKS IN DISTRIBUTION PIPES AND
RETROFITTING BUILDINGS WITH WATER EFFICIENT FIXTURES.
LOWER FLINTY EXAMPLE:
1) Mechanical redesigning the structural components of existing irrigation systems to
improve efficiency, i.e. low pressure drop nozzle retrofits. Water savings are achieved by:
1) improving uniformity of the irrigation systems to more than 80-% - this is simply a leak
check; 2) applying irrigation nearer to the crop reducing evaporation and wind drift; and 3)
installing an end gun shut off when applicable to keep irrigation inside field boundaries
YIELD: 22.5% in water savings per center pivot unit or approximately 6 million gallons
annually.
COST: $10,000 per system
TIMING: Since 2003, 20% of farmers in 27 counties of southwest GA have completed
which equals approximately 1,000 center pivot units.
B. METERING ALL WATER USES SO INDIVIDUAL ACCOUNTABILITY IS
ENCOURAGED. REAL TIME INFORMATION MODIFIES BEHAVIOR
LOWER FLINT EXAMPLE:
2) Technological Utilizing advanced technology applications on the farm to increase
accuracy, efficiency and effectiveness of irrigation, i.e. variable rate irrigation and remote
soil moisture monitoring. Variable rate irrigation (VRI) is a precision agriculture tool that
conserves both water and soil while improving crop yields by mapping crop acres and
defining irrigation patterns according to soil types, slope and hydrology. Remote soil
moisture monitoring employs soil moisture sensors, temperature probes and rain gauges to
record field conditions and upload real-time data to the internet via a wireless broadband
network, cell carrier or satellite system.
3)
YIELD: 17% per center pivot unit for VRI and 17% for remote soil moisture monitoring.
The savings equal 4.5 million for both practices or 9 million a year for both per center
pivot.
COST: $16,500 per unit for VRI. $3,500 for remote soil monitoring.
TIMING: 20 units currently online; 30 additional units will be active by 2010
Page 167
C. OUTDOOR LANDSCAPING INCENTIVES AND RULES IN ORDER TO
MINIMIZE WATER WASTE SUCH AS A DAYTIME BAN ON OUTDOOR
WATERING.
LOWER FLINT EXAMPLE:
4) Ecological Changing the way farmers manage agricultural fields so that naturally
occurring processes (ecosystem services) can replace production inputs such as water, fuel,
fertilizers and pesticides, i.e. sod based rotation.
Sod based rotation incorporates
Sod based rotation incorporates rotations of a perennial warm season grass into a
conservation tillage based row cropping system. The primary benefit of this practice is an
increase in soil organic matter at a rate of .1% per year which yields improved water
retention and soil health, supports a forty fold increase in crop roots and sequesters carbon.
YIELD: Conservation tillage creates a 17% in water savings annually or 4.5 million
gallons per center pivot unit. Sod based rotation can reduce water use further by an
additional 40% or 10.5 million gallons.
COST: $400/acre
TIMING: 100,000 acres in conservation tillage through NRCS 200 acres on an EPA test
site in sod based rotation.
NOTE:
All of these statistics are based on a 100-acre average field size in Georgia. Water is
applied by acre/inch. 1 acre inch of water = 27,154 gallons. 1 complete pass of a center
pivot system uses 2.7 million gallons of water. The number of passes made annually
average 10 so each year on average 1 center pivot uses 27 million gallons of water.
ADDITIONAL BENEFITS
ECONOMICAL: Demonstrating how water conservation improvise the farm economy by
reducing agricultural inputs. For example, a 15-20% reduction in irrigation applications equates
to a 15-20%reduction in energy costs. Farmers calculate cost on a per acre basis; if a
conservation practice can reduce per acre expenses while sustaining or even improving crop
yields, the farmer profits even if commodity prices stagnate. Input reduction via precision
agriculture technology or ecosystem services is good business.
SOCIAL: The establishment of a rural broadband network that provides farmers with real time
soil and water information has the ancillary benefit of bringing wireless technology to schools,
hospitals, and local governments in the 4 county pilot program area.
ENVIRONMENTAL: Farmers inherently understand the fact that water is a finite resource. If
provided the technology, incentives, and education to conserve water while potentially realizing
increased profits over time - they will modify their behavior. By leaving more water in the Flint
River all the ecological benefits associated with a healthy river system are realized
Page 168

Comments submitted via email to: info@gawatertaskforce.com
Copied: Hodell.martin@bcg.com; lowe@loweengineers.com;
kkirkpatrick@macoc.com; lbarrett@gov.state.ga.us; dougmiell@gmail.com

November 13, 2009


On behalf of Upper Chattahoochee Riverkeeper (UCR), I would like to thank you for
the opportunity to provide information to help guide the Task Forces efforts to
address the potential gap in our 2012 water supply due to a recent federal judges
ruling which invalidated Georgias use of Lake Lanier for water supply.

As you know, we have worked with the Georgia Water Coalition (GWC) to draft an
essentials document which outlines what we believe the priorities are for addressing
the gap and moving Georgia into a sustainable future (attached). We also have
worked with GWC to generate a comprehensive list of conservation and efficiency
measures which we believe must be fully exhausted in concert with serious efforts
to renegotiate a reallocation agreement authorizing use of Lanier for Georgia water
supply SULRUto any efforts to expand or add other water supply sources (attached).
Our comments here are supplemental to those submitted by the GWC which we
also helped draft and strongly support.

Conservation and Efficiency then Reallocation Before Seeking New Supplies

The Task Force has been presented with information suggesting that by 2012 we
will have a water shortfall of 251 MGD in light of the judges ruling. The GWC has
presented information illustrating that we can achieve a savings of roughly 210
MGD through proven, cost-effective conservation and efficiency measures, which
significantly closes that gap. We also note that time, money, and the need to
secure enough clean water for all users throughout the ACF basin all indicate that
reallocation of Lake Lanier to allow for water supply is the cheapest, quickest, and
most sustainable means of closing the rest of the "gap.

Accordingly, we again strongly urge the Task Force to focus on conservation,
efficiency, and reallocation first and foremost, and disregard expensive, destructive,
time-intensive, and unsustainable alternatives including construction of
development/amenity lakes, aquifer storage and recovery (ASR), desalinization,
Page 169
and piping water from the Tennessee River. In light of the severe economic
downturn, Georgians simply cannot afford these risky alternatives in this generation
or the next.

Accurately Characterizing the "Gap"

For several reasons, the "gap the Task Force has derived is an erroneous one. First
and foremost, in spite of a judicial ruling deciding that water supply is not an
authorized purpose for Lake Lanier, the Task Force is assuming that Metro Atlanta
can and will continue to grow at an accelerated rate as it grew back in the early
1990s. This assumption is entirely unreasonable. In fact, one "option that does not
appear to be on the table is a moratorium on growth for Metro Atlanta. From a
business perspective, this solution would and should precede any other solution. A
simple analogy makes this point-a business going bankrupt does not continue to
add inventory and personnel and otherwise overextend itself in order to get out of
bankruptcy. Rather, a business in trouble makes tough decisions that include
scaling back. To our amazement, this solution is getting no attention from the Task
Force.

Even if we assume that future rapid growth in the short-term can and will occur,
the "gap is derived by relying on the significantly flawed water demand projections
found in the Metro North Georgia Water Planning Districts 2009 Water Supply and
Water Conservation Management Plan. These projections overstate future demand
due to flawed input and assumptions, as outlined and discussed in these attached
documents:

Letter dated April 16, 2009 from UCR to the Metro District Governing Board
regarding the 2009 draft Metro District Water Supply and Water Conservation
Management Plan.

Letter dated January 30, 2009 from UCR to Metro District Governing Board
regarding the 2009 draft Metro District Water Supply and Water Conservation
Management Plan.

Report dated August 2006 by Pacific Institute, A Review of Water
Conservation Planning for the Atlanta, Georgia Region.

One of the fundamental assumptions underlying the overstated water projections is
the "adjusted base year profile which is essentially the starting point for the
projections. Simply stated, the projections are sensitive to that starting point
because the higher the starting point, the higher the end point. The Metro District
uses the year 2006, which they allege was "unnaturally depressed as a result of the
Page 170
ongoing drought. Our criticisms aside as to the irrational nature of using what they
themselves admit is an outlying point and their subsequent arbitrary adjustment to
inflate its value, we note that nothing could be further from the truth.

Water use in 2006 was anything but "depressed. We have attached a review
conducted by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers that shows water use in
Metro Atlanta with respect to Lake Lanier and the Chattahoochee River
(clearly relevant to the scope of work before the Task Force) was among the
highest on record since 1990. In fact, only the year 2000 surpassed 2006 in
terms of water use.

We also note that the U.S. Geological Survey has released information on
2005 water use by sector and by county; Georgia county-specific data is
available online at http://water.usgs.gov/watuse/data/2005/ as well as in
Appendix C of the attached USGS Report, Water Use in Georgia by County for
2005; and Water-Use Trends, 1980-2005. Summing across the 15-county
region, you get a total of 583 MGD for publically supplied water, which is
roughly 100 MGD less than the ~690 MGD adjusted baseline water use on
which the Metro District based its water demand projections.

These two pieces of information cast considerable doubt on the validity of the
base year chosen as well as the subsequent adjustment.

The other fundamental assumption underlying the overstated water projections is
the high rate of population and employment growth. Simply stated, the projections
also are sensitive to the slope over time because the higher the slope, the higher
the end point.

The Metro District fails to provide a range of growth scenarios, even in spite
of the recent, severe economic downturn which has brought new construction
and development to a virtual standstill in the region.

In fact, a recent Atlanta Regional Commission report (attached) states that
Metro Atlanta growth is the ORZHVW its been in twenty years.

Again, the fact that growth is actually at a record low level rather than high,
belies the fact that the Metro District projections grossly overstate future
water demand.

A simpler and more valid approach to estimating water demand in 2012 is simply to
look at water use dating back to 2004, the first full year following implementation
of the Metro District water plans, and then project forward. For example, using the
Page 171
Corps historical annual average water use data (2004-2007) and forecasting
forward, you project a 430 MGD need in 2012 (Lanier and Chattahoochee), leaving
a shortfall of 200 MGD.

Alternatively, using EPDs water use data and selecting the monthly high water
withdrawals for each facility in each year and then summing those, again focusing
on the years following adoption of the 2003 Metro District water plans (2004-2008),
you project a 428 MGD need in 2012 (Lanier and Chattahoochee), leaving a
shortfall of 198 MGD.

By either accounting, the "gap is overstated by at least 50 MGD.

Ensure Adequate Flows Protective of Instream Uses

As the Task Force considers water supply options for Metro Atlanta, a critical
component of all water management decisions must be a commitment to adequate
instream flows in the Chattahoochee River to protect designated uses, including
drinking water, recreation, and ecological health.

Although water levels for Lake Lanier and West Point Lake have received
considerable attention, the 120-mile stretch of river from Buford Dam to the
headwaters of West Point Lake in Franklin, including the Chattahoochee River
National Recreation Area and several state and local parks, has not received as
much attention or analysis to determine flows sufficient to protect important
instream values. There is one instantaneous flow requirement of 750 cubic feet per
second (cfs) in this river section just upstream of the confluence of Peachtree Creek
(PTC) and the Chattahoochee River that has been a part of Georgias water quality
regulations since the 1970s.

The PTC flow requirement was adopted to protect designated uses for downstream
waters, and all wastewater discharge (NPDES) permits issued by the Georgia EPD
assume that this flow will be met at all times for dilution purposes. In addition, the
Corps of Engineers operating guidelines for Buford Dam state that releases from
the dam must consider this downstream requirement and release enough water to
meet the flow target.

On several occasions in the past two years, the state has asked the Corps to reduce
the target flow to 650 cfs in order to hold more water up in Lake Lanier-a
difference of 65 million gallons per day at this location. As UCR has noted several
times (attached), the state has yet to provide adequate water quality and flow
monitoring at the compliance point or downstream of PTC to ensure that designated
uses are met. Neither has an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) been prepared
Page 172
to assess the potentially significant impacts of the flow reduction on the human
environment as required by the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).

To address these deficiencies, the state must undertake a comprehensive study,
working with federal resources agencies, to determine if the 750 cfs flow is
sufficiently protective now and will be sufficiently protective in the future given
growth projections, to ensure that designated downstream uses will be met at all
times. Until such time as an independent, peer-reviewed study is completed and a
new regulation is adopted by the state, the 750 cfs flow at PTC must be met DWDOO
WLPHV, even during droughts; in addition, the state must establish sufficient flow
and water quality monitoring stations to ensure that target is met, and the data
collected must be made easily available to the public.

Conclusion

The federal judicial ruling has provided the Metro Atlanta area with an
unprecedented opportunity to demonstrate good water stewardship to our
downstream neighbors. UCR strongly urges the Task Force to seize this opportunity
by embracing aggressive water conservation and efficiency measures and then
pursuing Lake Lanier reallocation for water supply at sustainable levels.

Sally Bethea
Executive Director and Riverkeeper
Upper Chattahoochee Riverkeeper
916 Joseph Lowery Blvd.
3 Puritan Mill
Atlanta, GA 30318

Page 173
FACT SHEET

Cont act : Kevin But ler
kbut ler@ugmo.com/ ( 678) 427- 1313

An Advanced Sensor Technol ogy Company
UgMO Saves Water, Saves Money, Saves Earth
UgMO is the most advanced, wireless underground monitoring system available today. UgMOs unique
blend of state-of-the-art hardware, intuitive software and world-class agronomic support completely removes
the guesswork of when and how much to water and how to manage other related resources like power and
soil additives (fertilizers, pesticides, nitrates, etc.).
The system measures precisely how much water is in the soil and communicates that data in real-time, 24/7.
UgMO delivers data to turf managers via its robust software platform so that they can make educated
decisions on irrigation. UgMO can also communicate directly with irrigation systems to interrupt automated
watering practices when irrigation is not needed.
Either way, the result is direct and immediate water conservation with UgMO placing its users at the
forefront of environmental stewardship.
State-of-the-Art System
UgMOs patent-protected hardware package is compact and non-invasive. Plus, its field-proven.
In-Ground Sensors Wireless subsurface
sensors provide highly accurate, real-time
data on soil moisture, temperature and
salinity gradients. Sensor nodes are
minimally invasive and easy to install (a
standard cup cutter does the job) with
battery life designed for 4+ years of
consistent, uninterrupted service.
Above-Ground Radio Self-contained
routers (aka radios) form a wireless mesh
network with a one-mile range above
ground, unobstructed.
Software Anywhere -- UgMOs software
interface displays real-time conditions and provides comprehensive intelligence plus corrective and
predictive actions. Its accessible to UgMO users from any Internet browser on desktops, laptops,
smart phones, etc.
Positive Returns
Environmental Benefits Water and energy savings reach 25% or more. Also reduces phosphate,
nitrate and pesticide usage and the overall carbon footprint.
Regulatory Benefits: UgMOs precise data can help meet water mandates and measure compliance;
it also create savings that can be applied to contingency planning.
UgMO is Affordable
UgMO hardware is a one-time purchase of $250 per sensor. UgMO software intelligence is sold on a
subscription basis the most basic level is approximately $8 per sensor monthly. ???
Bottom line: With water savings averaging 25 percent or more, the payback period on UgMO
technology can be one year or less.
840 Fi r st Av enue Sui t e 300, Ki ng of Pr ussi a, PA 19406 484. 690.0570 w w w . ugmo. com
Page 174
December 8, 2009
Georgia Water Contingency Task Force
The Office of the Governor
State of Georgia
203 State Capitol
Atlanta, GA 30334
Submitted via email: info@gawatertaskforce.com
Dear Members of the Georgia Water Contingency Task Force,
Southern Alliance for Clean Energy (SACE) submits the following comments concerning the task
forces directive to find a sustainable and cost-effective water supply for the Metro Atlanta region.
We are a non-profit organization that works to advance clean energy policy in the Southeast and
have members who are concerned about water quality and related environmental problems. Our
comments focus solely on the electricity sector and energy issues where we have in-depth expertise.
Regarding other topics unrelated to electricity and energy, we generally support the comments
submitted in November by the Georgia Water Coalition of which our organization is a member.
The Water-Energy Connection
Georgias power sector is the largest water user in the state, followed closely by agriculture.
i
Georgias existing electricity system significantly degrades water quality (e.g. thermal pollution,
emission and discharge of harmful chemicals and heavy metals) and reduces water availability for
Georgians and our bordering neighbors. Georgias existing electricity system already competes for
water with other important uses vital to our states economy and quality of life: drinking water
supply, agriculture, industry, fishing, and recreational opportunities. Several major new power
plants proposed for construction in Georgia will compete even more with other uses if approved by
the state.
Power plants must have significant water resources continuously and readily available to create and
condense steam to power their turbines. Water use refers to the amount of water that is withdrawn
from the water body by the power plant. Water consumption refers to the amount of water that the
power plant withdraws that is not returned to the water supply source, water that is lost or
consumed, primarily due to evaporation.
Water withdrawals and consumption figures depend heavily on what types of cooling technologies
are used. Power plants that use once-through systems (i.e. do not have cooling towers) withdraw
and heat very large volumes of water but consume little water because direct evaporation is low. In
contrast, closed cycle system power plants that use cooling towers do not need to withdraw nearly
as much water, but their cooling tower evaporation means a much higher rate of water consumption.
Although cooling towers offer certain environmental and engineering advantages over once-through
systems, they consume a lot of water. In Georgia, some power plants use cooling towers some or all
of the time, while others do not.
Page 175
Page 2 of 5 SACE Georgia Water Task Force comments
For instance, coal-fired Plant Branch withdraws over a billion gallons of water per day from Lake
Sinclair, but consumes a few million gallons of water because of its primary reliance on once-
through condenser cooling water and only seasonal use of its cooling tower. Georgias nuclear
plants Hatch and Vogtle use cooling towers for condensing steam, resulting in less water withdrawn
(around 60 million gallons per day) but with a much greater volume of water consumed or lost
(between 34 and 43 million gallons per day). This ultimately results in these plants returning less
than half of the water withdrawn to the Altamaha and Savannah rivers respectively. With the
proposed expansion of Plant Vogtle, more water will be lost as steam from the two existing and two
proposed reactors than is currently used by all residents of Atlanta, Augusta, and Savannah
combined.
ii
Less water used for power generation translates into more water for other life-dependent or life-
enhancing uses in the region.
Less Water-Intensive Energy Solutions Exist
There is an established link between reduction in electricity use and reduction of water consumed.
The Georgia Drought Response Unified Command (DRUC) highlighted the water-energy
connection through its statewide press release in December 2007:
DRUC encourages Georgians to help save water by conserving electricity. Large amounts
of water are required to generate electricity. In Georgia, each kilowatt hour (kWh) of
electricity production consumes 1.65 gallons of water according to the National Renewable
Energy Laboratory.
iii
To put it in context, the average Georgia households electricity use is
1,148 kilowatt hours per month, requiring 1,894 gallons of water to generate.
One strategy for saving water is to reduce energy consumption, said Georgia
Environmental Facilities Authority (GEFA) Executive Director Chris Clark. Georgians
can help the state through this drought by implementing a few practical energy efficiency
measures in their homes. Not only will this help conserve water and energy, it will also help
lower their utility bills.
iv
The actual specifics can vary on how a particular river basin in Georgia may benefit from water
savings due to improved energy efficiency and fuel switching to less water-intensive energy
technologies. Yet, given Georgias current overreliance on water-intensive energy supply options,
water in the region will be conserved when energy efficiency and water-conserving power supply
technologies replace the existing highly water-intensive energy technologies. If a water-intensive
coal fired power plant in Georgia does not have to run at full capacity because there has been a
reduction in energy demand through far more effective energy efficiency programs and far more
effective fuel switching to less water intensive energy supplies than currently exists, then less water
will be required to run that plant and thus less water will be withdrawn from a particular resource. If
all electric utilities in Georgia and the surrounding region were to adopt water-conserving rather
than water-intensive technologies, the results would be quite significant.
A May 2005 study by ICF, Assessment of Energy Efficiency Potential in Georgia, done for the
Georgia Environmental Facilities Authority as they began to craft the states first energy strategy,
showed that reducing the amount of water required for cooling at power plants could offer
Page 176
significantly more water savings than by water conservation measures implemented by the end-user
(e.g. low flow showerheads, among other measures). The study estimated that if moderately
aggressive electric utility energy efficiency programs were implemented then the power sector
could reduce its water consumption by 155 million gallons of water per day (mgd) by 2015.
v
Looking at all scenarios, the study estimated that water use for cooling purposes at power plants
could be reduced by 58-224 mgd by 2010 (had these efforts been implemented after the 2005 study
was released) versus 3-10 mgd reductions by implementing various efficiency measures to reduce
water use by end users. As the Table 8 from the study shows, substantially greater water savings are
estimated to be available in the power sector.
The Task Force should be aware that when comparing types of energy generation, regardless of
whether cooling towers are used, nuclear power has higher rates of both water withdrawal and
consumption than coal and natural gas and far more than renewables such as wind and solar.
vi
Though coal plants are not as water intensive as nuclear reactors, coal is typically the most water
intensive choice among fossil fuel power generation options. Good wind resources exist in Georgia,
particularly offshore along the coast.
vii
According to the Department of Energys National
Renewable Energy Laboratory, developing 1000 MW of wind in Georgia could save 1628 million
gallons of water per year.
viii
Less water-intensive cooling technologies, such as dry cooling, are
available but no existing or proposed power plants in Georgia are actively pursuing them.
Individual actions such as use of Energy Star appliances that use less energy and water can also
achieve water savings. Energy Star washing machines, for example, require approximately 50% less
energy per load and use 30-50% less water than a typical model. This saves water two ways and
saves consumers money on both their water and energy bills. The recent report, Water and Watts:
Water-Energy Links in the Southeast United States, April 2009 by the World Resources Institute,
gives some useful background and has an example on p. 8 of how much energy savings can be
gained by changing over 1 in 10 inefficient toilets with WaterSense labeled toilets estimating it
could save nearly 25 billion gallons of water annually (enough to meet Charlotte, North Carolinas
entire public water supply needs for nearly eight months). Additionally, it could save residents
about $150 million in water bills, and reduce electric power use (needed to treat, pump, and deliver
the water) by more than 80 million kilowatt hours (kWh), which is about equal to the annual
Page 177
electricity use for 7,500 homes.
ix
Recommendations
Call for aggressive implementation of water-saving energy measures such as energy efficiency and
energy conservation and advance less water-intensive electricity supplies such as wind and solar. If
energy conservation and fuel switching to water conserving energy supplies were implemented such
that reliance on water-intensive new power plants decreased, water resources in the region would
also be conserved and available for life-supportive activities as a result.
o In comments we submitted to the Environmental Protection Division earlier this year for the
Water Conservation Implementation Plan, we recommended that state agencies conduct energy
audits by 2011 and that state agencies should match federal agencies goal of 30% total energy
reduction by 2015 in all public buildings using FY2003 as a baseline as outlined in the Energy
Policy Act of 2005 and Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (see
http://www.dsireusa.org/library/includes/incentive2.cfm?Incentive_Code=US02R&State=federa
ltpageid=1&ee=1&re=1). Given the large number of state agencies and the respective facilities
located in the Metro Atlanta area alone, this could provide significant water savings to the
region given the generally energy-inefficient operation of State of Georgia buildings. For
background on supportive policies, please see p. 5 under Demonstrate leadership with energy
efficient public buildings in the 2009 Water and Watts report mentioned previously.
o Design and adopt utility incentives directed at both water and energy conservation and
efficiency to apply within the region, including: incentives outlined in the ICF studies
Assessment of Energy Efficiency Potential in Georgia and Strategies for Capturing
Georgias Energy Efficiency Potential done for the Georgia Environmental Facilities
Authority; prioritization of state spending on energy and water projects, tax credits for the
installation of devices that collect rain water in homes, and additional tax free holidays for
EnergyStar and WaterSense qualifying appliances. See a recent article at
http://www.wneg32.tv/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1645:tax-free-
appliances&catid=1:latest-news&Itemid=18 that highlights the water/energy connection and
mentions some of these measures.
o Abandon pursuit of desalination. Desalination is an energy-intensive technology
x
which, given
Georgias water-intensive energy infrastructure, means that desalination efforts in Georgia will
also be highly water-intensive. This reality alone negates any supposed benefits.
In favor of far more water-conserving energy solutions and cheaper alternatives, halt proposed
utility plans to build more coal plants and nuclear reactors that seek to horde even more of
Georgias scarce water supplies.
o Evaluate proposed energy supply options based on their water impacts. It is critical to recognize
and act on the fact that some supply side choices are less water-intensive than others and that
electric utilities have clear portfolio choices to bring a combination of supply and demand
resources. A utility resource package can be either highly water intensive or highly water
conserving or somewhere in the middle, depending on which fuel combinations and
technologies are chosen. The State of Georgia must conduct comparative analysis of the water
requirements and water impacts of the range of electric generating technologies and policy
Page 178
analysis to enable utility and environmental regulators to make well-informed decisions about
new power supply options from a water perspective. All state governments in the region that are
struggling with how to more effectively manage their own states water resources should be
placing very high priority on aggressively building a far more water-efficient electric system.
The business-as-usual course that is harming our regions water resources that Georgias electric
power sector continues to pursue should not be allowed to continue.
Develop a coordinated campaign to educate the public. Electric utilities are among the largest water
users in the state and are proposing new power plants that will be among the highest water
consuming power plants that exist. There are less water intensive ways to produce the power
Georgians need along with measures that can be implemented to save both energy and water
resources.
o State agencies EPD and GEFA should be involved in addition to environmental and
consumer groups with utility assistance as needed so that all can help communicate the benefits
of water and energy efficiency as it relates to consumer behavior and technology adoption. The
U.S. EPA has excellent information on both energy efficiency and water efficiency. Information
such as the following, as presented on p. 3 of the Water and Watts referred to previously in our
comments, is helpful for utility consumers and the public to know: Southeast power plants
withdraw an average of two full bathtubs of water to generate electricity needed to power a
refrigerator for a day, losing about four gallons to evaporation in the process.
If you have any questions or comments on the information SACE has submitted, please do not
hesitate to contact me at 912.201.0354 or sara@cleanenergy.org.
Sincerely,
Sara Barczak, Program Director
High Risk Energy Choices
Southern Alliance for Clean Energy
i
Fanning, J.L. 2003. Water Use in Georgia by county for 2000 and water-use trends for 1980-2000. Georgia Geologic Survey Information Circular
106, 176.
ii
Using 2005 Census figures and with the average per capita daily water use in GA at 75 gallons from surface and ground water sources,
http://water.usgs.gov/watuse/tables/dotab.st.html. Water use figures for new reactors from Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Vogtle Early Site
Permit Application, Environmental Report, August 2006.
iii
National Renewable Energy Laboratory, Consumptive Water Use for U.S. Power Production, Paul A. Torcellini, Nicholas Long, & Ronald D.
Judkoff, Dec. 2003.
iv
DRUC Press Release, 12/11/07, at https://www.piersystem.com/go/doc/1619/185714/.
v
Access the report at http://www.gefa.org/Index.aspx?page=347, scroll down to Air Quality and for the report Assessment of Energy Efficiency
Potential in Georgia. See p. 5-3 (or section 5.2. Impacts on Water Consumption).
vi
Hoffmann, J., S. Forbes, T. Feeley. U.S. DOE, Estimating Freshwater Needs to Meet 2025 Electrical Generating Capacity Forecasts, June 2004
and U.S. DOE, Energy Demands on Water Resources, Report to Congress on the Interdependency on Energy and Water, December 2006.
vii
U.S. DOE, Energy Demands on Water Resources, Report to Congress on the Interdependency of Energy and Water, December 2006.
viii
National Renewable Energy Lab, Economic Benefits, Carbon Dioxide (CO2) Emissions Reductions, and Water Conservation Benefits from 1,000
Megawatts (MW) of New Wind Power in Georgia, June 2008. 300 MW land based and 700 MW offshore.
ix
Access the report at http://www.rivernetwork.org/blog/7/2009/05/20/watts-and-water-new-report-water-energy-nexus-southeast.
x
DOE, Energy Demands on Water Resources, Report to Congress on the Interdependency on Energy and Water, December 2006, p. 46.
Page 179
Mac, Katie, Nels and Lonice--
Thanks very much for making time for our meeting this morning. We appreciate the
opportunity to give you feedback and input. You have done an excellent job of
packaging a lot of information and we generally agree with your main points.
Coming out of that meeting, we summarized the most critical points that we want you
to hear from us:
1. THE GAP SHOULD BE PRESENTED AS A RANGE AND IS LIKELY
BIGGER THAN 250 MGD. The analysis assumes that 230 mgd can be withdrawn
from the river. This is not a safe assumption and it may even be misleading. The
right number could be considerably less. There is no reason to credit 230 mgd even
as a starting point for this analysis. The judge pulled this number from a document
written in 1974 that included numerous outdated assumptions. 230 mgd is not
guarantee by the Orderall that is guaranteed is that there will be no lake
withdrawals (save 10 mgd) and that off-peak releases will be 600 cfs. We have asked
Hydrologics to prepare a reasonable estimate of the water available to the Metro area
assuming Buford is operated in accordance with the Order and will send that to you
when we get it (we hope this afternoon). One way or the other, the gap should be
presented as a range.
2. With regard to the "indirect potable reuse" option:
a. The consensus of the water managers is that the costs for the big pipeline project
are significantly understated. George Barnes and the City of Atlanta looked hard at a
similar, but different, project several years ago. George feels that the project, whether
piping or tunnel, either one, would cost about $5-6 billion.
b. We suggest another name for the project, such as "lower to upper basin transfer."
We don't want to focus the attention on the indirect potable reuse aspects--we are
already doing that, on a large scale. What this project does is transport water from
below Atlanta up to the head of the region, and the name should reflect that.
3. Cedar Creek needs to be taken off the list of potential water transfer options.
4. We think the issue with Morgan Falls is that "safe yield" is not the right point of
comparison. That concept is not relevant to a reregulation project. The result is to
understate the potential value of this alternative by a wide margin. We suggest you
remove Morgan Falls from the chart that ranks projects by yield and discuss it on a
different slidepotentially with other projects designed to skim peaking releases
from Buford Dam. Lewis has worked up some information and discussion, which is
attached, to demonstrate this point. We understand it presents significant
environmental and social costs, but so does every other option. We want to ensure
that the benefits of Morgan Falls dredging are understood and on the table when the
priorities are determined.
Page 180
5. The timelines are probably too optimistic. On the lower to upper basin transfer
project, it would be unlikely to get such a massive multi-jurisdictional project in place
by 2020. It certainly cannot be do in about 4 years, as shown on Slide 21 in the pre-
read materials. That is the most glaring example, but we think the timeline on other
projects, such as reservoirs, is not realistic.
6. We suggest that you have some additional discussion of the environmental
consequences of the various options, taking a more nuanced view than that of the
environmental groups, and also making the irrefutable point that reallocation of Lake
Lanier is the best option from an environmental perspective. We are working on that
and will send you something as soon as possible.
Page 181

Page 182
Page 183
866 880-4030 (ph) - 866 657-3665 (fox)
Finally, Water Works
Standard irrigation controls use preset irrigation times, which dont
take into account local irrigation restrictions or rainfall. Additionally,
they dont take into account the homeowners knowledge of the
irrigation system.
The WaterOptimizer uses state of the art moisture sensors tested in
both the laboratory and the eld. Forget zone irrigation, users can
irrigate according to the needs of the plants or sod needs that are
identied by this smart irrigation control system. And, if interrupted
for demand control, the Water
Optimizer picks up where it
left off, it doesnt reset like
conventional irrigation systems.
Using the WaterOptimizer to
manage heavy users, utilities can
substantially reduce peak water
requirements, delaying the need for expensive alternative supplies.
Some utilities may offer rebates, free installation and equipment
maintenance to homeowners to support voluntary participation.
Homeowners that use the WaterOptimizer will see lower monthly water
bills and landscape that gets all the water it needs, but no more.
Homeowners may also see a more attractive lawn! The WaterOptimizer
will deliver the proper amount of water to your lawn and garden,
resulting in optimum growing conditions. Homeowners will see a
signicant reduction in weeds resulting from overwatering and soggy
plant beds.
The WaterOptimizer can be locally controlled, allowing homeowners to
override the utility. But given the results and cost savings, they are far
more likely to maximize its use.
By limiting peak day
usage, utilities and users
can save and conserve a
valuable resource.
Finally,
Water Works!
The WaterOptimizer is a real water
management alternative that provides
better, more precise use of a limited
resource. Water is applied when and
where its needed and only in the amount
thats needed. Efcient use of existing
water supplies delays the need to
develop costly alternatives. In the
process, the public, the utility and
individual homeowners all save money.
Its a new approach to resource
management and conservation.
Austin
TEXAS
Pinellas County
FLORIDA
Tarpon Springs
FLORIDA
Salt Lake City
UTAH
Our Locations
s Austin, Texas
s Dallas, Texas
s Jacksonville, Florida
s Sarasota, Florida
s Tampa, Florida
s Miami, Florida
The WaterOptimizer makes the
mosI of woIer supp||es
Designed by water conservation
professionals, the WaterOptimizer is
a smart system that allows utilities
better control over water resource
use. It allows home or business
owners to use the water they need,
but no more.
The WaterOptimizer is designed for use by Regional Water Utilities and
individual homeowners to monitor conditions in the water distribution
system through custom designed software.
A seamless blend of new and tested technologies ensures that the
system works whether someone is home or not.
The WaterOptimizer provides a
real management option
For Water Managers: The WaterOptimizer allows water managers
to eliminate peaks and manage community supplies, while it provides
users all the water they need for landscape maintenance.
Residents and Businesses: The WaterOptimizer connects to
residential or individual irrigation systems, replacing any existing
controller. Although connection is voluntary, local water utilities can
then manage the system by allowing individual systems to operate, or
by re-directing irrigation to times when there is less demand.
Regardless of the user, the WaterOptmizer protects system water
pressure, provides the resource where its needed. When its not
needed, its saved for another day.
The WaterOptimizer operates
in 6 ways
1
2
3
4
5
6
Weather
As the weather changes, the WaterOptimizer responds. If its
raining, the irrigation system simply will not activate.
Sensor
Each system has moisture sensors located throughout the
property. Its easy to set a moisture level for the zone. When the
moisture level is reached, the system moves to the next zone, or
simply doesnt activate.
Reclaimed Water (Force-on)
Beyond conventional systems, the WaterOptimizer can be applied
to the reclaimed water system. With the WaterOptimizer, utilities
can manage reclaimed water like the valuable resource it is.
Pressure
The WaterOptimizer monitors pressure in the system. If
the systems water pressure is too low, the WaterOptimizer
automatically initiates a program to manage irrigation (a
nonessential use) so that essential needs are met. Once pressure
is restored, the irrigation system will continue where it left off.
Fire Support
In case of emergency, the re department can interrupt irrigation
to increase water pressurewith a phone call.
Emergencies (optional)
During emergencies like oods, hurricanes, or tornados, this
system has the capability to sound an audible alarm that
will alert citizens and improve emergency
service response time.
Regional Water
Utility Central
Control
Homeowner Irrigation
2-Way Communication
Weather
Station
(Optional)
Moisture
Sensor
(Optional)
Pressure
Monitoring
(Optional)
The WaterOptimizer provides
the water thats needed
Every water manager knows that anywhere from 50 75 percent
of water demand goes to irrigation. In most cases, thats far more
than is needed. This use of water for outdoor irrigation combined
with an increase of in-ground irrigation systems has led to
increased water waste.
The Water Optimizer system allows homeowners and water
managers to work together to provide more responsive, better-
focused irrigation to home and business owners, and allows
better monitoring of water use by utilities.
Its OK to irrigate.
CALL ( 866) 880- 4030 FOR MORE I NFORMATI ON.
(8) 880-4030 - www.WoterOpt|m|zer.com
Just made law, Chapter 373.62 creates new options for
CDDs, HOAs, Water Authorities, Districts, managers and local
governments throughout Florida.
By employing smart irrigation technology entire
communities can receive a variance from irrigation restrictions.
Our system features:
& Internet based monitoring and control
& Moisture sensors
& Precision lawn management
$mort Irr|got|on.
keo| $mort.
Save Water
Save Money
Irrigate up to 7 days per week
Ihe new |ow chonges evervth|ng
ADVERTORIAL
Tec hnology rules!
|eW |ardcape |rr|al|or lec|ro|o|e are
de|red lo ue Waler rore ell|c|erl|y. A
reW |aW |r F|or|da. C|apler 373.o2 iS8494)
urdercore |oW rarl |rr|al|or yler
l|al ue o|| ro|lure eror car aclua||y
ave |ardcape. Waler ard rorey.
Vo|lure eror a||oW |ardcape lo el
l|e Waler l|ey reed. oul or|y W|er l|ey
reed |l. T|e reu|l: |e Waler ued W|l| l|e
are oulcore. w|||e l|e reW lec|ro|oy
app||e lo ary |ardcape. l|e reW |aW
a||oW l0A'. corrur|ly deve|oprerl
d|lr|cl ard |are properly oWrer lo app|y
lor a var|arce lo |oca| Waler|r relr|cl|or.
Show me the savings!
T|e waler0pl|r|zer
| ar |rr|al|or yler
l|al | o rarl. |oreoWrer rea||y car
el |l ard lorel |l. So|| ro|lure eror
a||oW |ardcape lo rece|ve l|e arourl ol
Waler l|ey reed. la||r l|e 'ue Wor|
oul ol |rr|al|or. 'll' eay lo el a ro|lure
|eve| lor l|e zore. a|d T|erra \|la
Corrur|l|e Ceve|oprerl Varaer R|c|
8ruoa|er. 'w|er l|e el ro|lure |eve| |
reac|ed. l|e yler rove lo l|e rexl
zore. or |rp|y doer'l acl|vale.
Re|derl ard ou|ree currerl|y u|r l|e
waler0pl|r|zer
|ave eer oerel|l |rc|u

d|r av|r Waler ard rorey ard |rproved
|ardcape appeararce. '0re ol our c||erl
aved up lo o0 percerl ol l|e|r Waler
corurpl|or u|r l|e waler0pl|r|zer.

a|d C|ear waler PSl 0Wrer Judy 8eror.
T|ee reu|l are lror a corerval|or
prole|ora|-oreore a|ready erp|oy|r
corerval|or lrale|e.
0r||re acce a||oW Waler raraer or
|oreoWrer lo rerole|y ror|lor ard
ra|e c|are lo l|e yler. 'Vy lavor|le
lealure are l|e rerole ror|lor|r ard
reporl|r capao|||l|e. a|d 8eror. 'T|e
or||re ror|lor|r lealure prov|de u W|l|
l|e ao|||ly lo correcl |rr|al|or |ue oelore
l|e |ardcape | daraed or urreceary
Waler ue |a occurred.
The WaterOptimizer

is user- friendly.
ll correcl lo ary re|derl|a| |rr|al|or
yler. rep|ac|r ex|l|r corlro||er. 8eyord
corverl|ora| yler. l|e waler0pl|r|zer
car a|o oe ued W|l| a rec|a|red Waler

yler. T|| a||oW ul|||l|e lo rarae
rec|a|red Waler rore ell|c|erl|y ard lo expard
l|e culorer oae. Ard a l|e Weal|er
c|are. l|e waler0pl|r|zer
repord.
ll |l' ra|r|r. l|e yler Wor'l rur.
But there s more
T|e waler0pl|r|zer
car Wor| |r |x oper

al|ora| rode: Weal|er. eror. rec|a|red
Waler. preure. l|re upporl ard ererercy.
Eac| rode Wa de|red lo reel a pec|l|c
reed. T|e waler0pl|r|zer
car rarae
|eavy uer. a||oW|r ul|||l|e lo reduce
pea| Waler requ|rererl.
ll l|e yler' Waler preure | loo |oW. l|e
waler0pl|r|zer
car auloral|ca||y |r|l|ale

a prorar lo rarae |rr|al|or o l|al
eerl|a| Waler reed are rel. 0rce yler
preure | relored. l|e |rr|al|or yler
W||| p|c| up W|ere |l |ell oll. lr cae ol ar
ererercy |lual|or. l|e l|re deparlrerl
car ra|e a p|ore ca|| lo |rlerrupl |rr|al|or
ard |rcreae Waler preure. Ard dur|r
ar ererercy l|e waler0pl|r|zer
ever
|a l|e capao|||ly lo ourd ar a|arr l|al
W||| a|erl c|l|zer ard |rprove ererercy
repore l|re.
Learn More
To |earr rore aooul l|e waler0pl|r|zer

yler. v||l WWW.waler0pl|r|zer.cor or
ca|| i8oo) 8804030.
Make Your Own Irrigation Rules!
Recerl |e||al|or |r F|or|da a||oW l|e l|ex|o|||ly lo Waler up lo ever day a Wee| W|l| l|e proper
lec|ro|oy. The WaterOptimizer
is a smart irrigation system that meets the requirements of this

legislation and saves a significant amount of water. 8elWeer l|e col ol Waler ard l|e col ol
ell|r Waler a||ocaled. |l ra|e ere lo ue l|e oel ava||ao|e lec|r|que ard lec|ro|oy lo oe
ell|c|erl W|||e de||ver|r l|e |ardcap|r l|al F|or|d|ar |ove.

Georgia Water Task Force Final Report

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Georgia Water Task Force Final Report

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

WATER CONTINGENCY PLANNING

|ave eer oerel|l |rc|u

car a|o oe ued W|l| a rec|a|red Waler

car Wor| |r |x oper

car auloral|ca||y |r|l|ale

is a smart irrigation system that meets the requirements of this

You might also like