Introduction

The Stakeholder Advisory Committee (“SAC”) and the Technical Advisory Committee (“TAC”) members were welcomed by Rob McDowell, Flint River Basin Plan Coordinator for the Georgia Environmental Protection Division (“EPD”). Rob introduced Dan Bollinger, Executive Director of the Southwest Georgia Regional Development Center (SWRDC), as a new member to the SAC. Dan briefly described SWRDC’s history of involvement in regional water issues. Rob thanked participants for their contributions of time and energy. The minutes from the November 19 meeting were discussed and no suggestions were tendered for revision.

Rob briefly reviewed and distributed Joe William’s notes from the most recent meeting of the Technical Advisory Committee. Joe has offered to be the SAC’s representative to the TAC and to attend all of those meetings and report back to the SAC. Joe William’s notes have been posted on the Flint River Basin Plan website, www.gadnr.org/frbp .

USGS and Model Presentations

In preparation for preliminary discussions of the United States Geological Survey (USGS) model, Rob gave a brief background of the USGS and its involvement in the Flint River Basin area over the past 20 years. In 1988, USGS began work on regional computer models of the Dougherty Plain using MODFLOW, a two dimensional modeling system. In 1993, the agency first published MODFE, an improved three-dimensional modeling system that is presented for incorporation into the Flint River Basin Plan. USGS is engaged in a continuous improvement process of MODFE, constantly striving to improve the accuracy with which the model can predict real world conditions.

The ACT-ACF “water war” increased interest and involvement in the Flint River Basin, starting in 1990, when Alabama sued the Army Corps. of Engineers over the City of Atlanta’s water use. The ACT-ACF Comprehensive Study involved a variety of federal agencies, including USGS.

The Sub area 4 study in 1996 (incorporating much of the lower Flint basin) was commonly believed to have predicted that the Flint River would “go dry”. This was an inaccurate representation of the conclusions drawn by the USGS. The study actually described that some streams within the Flint River Basin would become “losing streams”. When these were added to EPD’s surface area estimates, the model estimated a few days a year of ‘negative incremental flow’.

The old model assumed that for every gallon removed from the Flint for irrigation, the flow of the Flint decreased by .6 gallon. With an estimated 475 million gallons per day assumed pumping rate, the flow would decrease significantly each day. The new model will be using actual irrigation water use rates, taken from the irrigation pumping study performed by NESPAL. The USGS has a long record of research in the area and has done good work in the City of Albany and in the tri-state water wars. In addition, USGS research has within the Basin has been published in a number of peer-reviewed publications. The full USGS background PowerPoint presentation, which Rob summarized, has been posted on the Flint River Basin Plan website, www.gadnr.org/frbp .

Woody Hicks then gave a presentation on the USGS model and the major assumptions and information the model requires, entitled “Southwest Georgia Hydrogeology 101”. The full PowerPoint presentation has been posted on the Flint River Basin Plan website, www.gadnr.org/frbp .

Woody emphasized that the model is not the centerpiece of the Flint River Basin Plan, but rather is a tool that can help stakeholders find answers. He began by defining some terminology and clarifying that his presentation focused upon the Upper Floridan Aquifer because that is the source of greatest concern.

Woody explained the concepts of “Confinement” (where groundwater is not exposed to atmospheric conditions and is under artesian pressure), “Transmissivity” (how efficiently water moves through aquifers), and “Secondary Permeability” (where water moves through cracks in limestone more quickly than it moves through the limestone itself). Woody described the Floridan aquifer as highly variable; Miller, Baker, Seminole and Mitchell counties generally have very high transmissivity numbers, (up to 1 million square feet per day) while some of the northern counties have very low numbers (down to 200 square feet per day). Transmissivity is important in understanding how cones of depression form during pumping, how closely wells can successfully be sited, and how having “too many straws in the soda at one time” can reduce the effectiveness of the pumps.

The Floridan Aquifer extends from Mississippi, through southern Alabama, into southern Georgia and all throughout Florida into the Gulf of Mexico. Parts of the Flint River Basin are the major recharge areas for the Floridian aquifer. Water in some areas of the aquifer may only flow a few feet a year – it may take 1,000 years or more for the water that falls in the Flint River region to get to the Georgia coast.

Precipitation will be used as a model input by the USGS, so understanding rainfall and its trends is important. In general, the aquifer in this area does not recharge from April to October. Recharge comes from frontal rainfall that occurs primarily from November through March. When groundwater pumping exceeds recharge, then water levels will go down. We’ve not seen long-term declines in water levels over 30 years of fairly intensive water use. We seem to be getting more rainfall during the winter (8 inches more now during the winter than in 1950). This is more groundwater recharge, but if we’re still getting the same average rainfall, then pumping requirements increase in the summer because the rain is all coming in the winter.

From 1950 to 1983, this area was a little bit below the average rainfall of 52 inches per year. This deficit reached its greatest point in 1970, at which time per annum rainfall began to recover. Large increases in the use of center pivot irrigation systems began around 1975-1976. Rainfall continued to increase through 1998, at which time a drought started. Rainfall has once again begun to increase, although we are having a bit of a dry period at present.

To understand the model, it is also important to understand how streams in the area interact with the aquifer. Not all streams interact with the aquifer, but for those streams that do a situation can develop where the river starts to recede back into the aquifer. Water quality isn’t impacted significantly because these situations are short term. Spring Creek, for example, is very connected to the aquifer, so pumping in that area directly impacts the stream.

Currently, according to the PERMITTED CAPACITY (i.e. the pump size as indicated on EPD agricultural permits), 77% of pumping is from groundwater and 23% is from streams. The total permitted capacity is 9 billion gallons a day, but the average actual use across the basin is 3 billion gallons a day. At permitted levels, if everyone turned on their systems on the same day at peak capacity, the volume of water would exceed the volume of the flow of the Flint River.

A new model is needed because .6 loss for every gallon pumped is not realistic. If we’re pumping 3 billion gallons a day, we would see over 1.5 billion gone from the river and we don’t see this.

It is important to note that Permits are granted for specific aquifers (i.e., Floridan, Claiborne). Woody then provided analysis of groundwater permits by sub area, showing that the Lower Flint basin has a large number of groundwater permits. The Upper Flint basin has less than 30 groundwater permits. The Kinchafoonee and Muckalee areas have a substantive number of both groundwater and surface irrigation systems.

Ichawaynochaway Creek is the most potentially impacted watershed in the lower Flint basin. Permitted capacities in this area exceed the volume of available water. Woody then showed stream flow at Ichawaynochaway Creek at Milford, which had 61 years of records. Data showed pre- and post- irrigation by year and by month. During fall and winter, pre- and post-pumping flows are the same. However, there is a significant difference between growing season flows. April is the worst month in terms of difference between pre-irrigation and post-irrigation flows, with a 400 cfs difference. In June, we’re taking out about 22% of the flow of the creek – real-world measures that are averaged over a long period of time. This is not .6, or 6/10 – this is 22%. Woody emphasized that these are not hypothetical impacts, but are based on real world data. Some data is also available for other streams in the region, and for various monitoring points. More measurements are taken at more areas – can’t necessarily use for trend analysis, but very effective.

The proposed model takes our understanding of the aquifer system and processes all available data to provide answers. The answer we get is only as good as the information we put into the model. This new model is not marketed and sold widely – we need a lot of data in order to calibrate the model, but when effectively calibrated, the model will be quite useful in conducting “what-if” analyses.

“How will the USGS/EPD transient flow model be used?”

• Predict stream flow impacts from nearby groundwater pumping
• Predict regional and localized pumping effects on groundwater levels
• Predict impacts of drought on groundwater levels
• Identify areas where additional groundwater permitting could be sustained could not be sustained.
• Identify stream reaches that may be adversely impacted during drought
• Evaluate pumping effect on spring discharge to streams

The model will be one of the tools that the state uses to permit and protect resources. The model only looks at groundwater – not surface water

Woody emphasized that the previous USGS model was a “steady-state” model, whereas the new model is a transient model which can readily adapt to changing conditions and can incorporate additional data. Obtaining better pumping numbers will be eminently useful in helping to improve the efficacy of this model.

Presentation from Metro North Georgia Water Planning District

Rick Brownlow from the Metro North Georgia Water Planning District
provided an overview of his organization’s structure and planning activities relative to the upper Flint River. A copy of Mr. Brownlow’s PowerPoint presentation is posted at www.gadnr.org/frbp .

Questions from Small Group Discussion

The Stakeholder Advisory Committee then broke into small discussion groups and returned with additional questions for Woody and the Technical Advisory Committee. A summary of the questions and responses follows:

1. When will the report on water utilization per crop be available?

Pending final review by EPD, the report should be available by the next meeting of the Stakeholder Advisory Committee. The numbers in that report will represent the observed usage, not necessarily the amount of water needed per crop. Jim Hook added that the rainfall associated with the research can also be provided.

2. Why don’t we have more reservoirs?

Expense, ecological impact and parts of the state that do not lend themselves to reservoirs. Political and technical reasons have also been barriers. Respondents noted that reservoirs are primarily for storage, and are not largely effective for conservation purposes due to evaporation and other forms of water loss.

3. Is Agriculture the only part of the plan and the only sector that will be asked to reduce water usage? Are Industry and municipalities being considered in the plan?

72% of the current permits are for agricultural use. However, Rob indicated that the plan should include a broader perspective than agriculture and encouraged the group to include this in their thought process. There is a not clear legal guideline as to how to transfer usage from agriculture to other usages. In response to concerns expressed that agriculture would be the only sector asked to reduce its usage, Rob again emphasized that the response to this question should be a part of the group discussion.

4. How is accurate is the data that is being used in the model?

While the group can always say that it needs more data, hard decisions have to be made, decisions that do not necessarily depend upon data. This is the best data set we have ever had to apply to a model. Members noted the importance of having a dynamic, living plan that can change when data changes, and also noted the TAC’s commitment to speak up if they believe the SAC needs more information or has incorrect information.

5. How does the ground water model interact with the surface water model?

There will be an analysis of surface and ground water usage with the models developed, although the model focuses on groundwater. Rob clarified that surface water issues are within the purview of this committee. The surface water models will not be available for several months. Members expressed concern about the timeline for the process with the pending models still being developed. Rob responded that it is a tight timeline and there may be a need for longer meetings. Members noted that the group needs to work on a plan and not be worried about the specifics of the models at this point. The committee needs to propose guidelines and rules that we can live with.

6. When will the models and data be available?

Rob stated that the water pumping data will be available at next meeting. One member noted a possible lack of trust because of a perceived cloak of secrecy surrounding some of this information. Different experts are suggesting that they are being “locked out of data”. Rob responded by saying that all EPD data is public and the he is willing to share information with anyone.

7. Why are we not looking at other state plans like Florida?

The group discussed what else they wanted in addition to the preliminary information on Florida that they were given at the November meeting. They decided they wanted to see an executive summary of the Florida Plan, which EPD promised to provide at the next meeting.

8. Is there a draft plan being developed by someone else?

Rob responded by saying there is no formal plan being developed other than the one this Stakeholder group is working on.

The group agreed that they would review a summary of the Florida plan prior to the next meeting, and that they would like a representative from Florida to be invited to the next meeting, if possible, to present to the group. The group also asked for summaries of other southern states’ plans.

The breakout groups were also asked to list the greatest challenges in developing the Flint River Basin Plan. Issues given by the groups are listed below and will be discussed at the next meeting.

Challenges

Group 1:

1. Protecting current permit holders from the adverse affects of issuing new permits.
2. Selling the Plan
3. How can we continue economic growth in fully allocated and over allocated areas?

Group 2:

1. Impact of governor, EPD administration changes on plan. Will this work be re-done if changes occur?
2. How do we correct over usage in areas?
3. How do we permit in areas that are not over-allocated?
4. How do we get flexibility in the plan to account for water changes? Agricultural use, Industrial use, Municipal use and vice-versa

Group 3:

1. Different crops require different amounts of water (within County)
2. Time-Plan due in October.
3. Misconception about how much water is being pumped/utilized.
4. Increasing urban encroachment, change of land use from agriculture to residential and other uses.

The SAC briefly discussed voting procedures for the group and reviewed a handout provided by the facilitators. A suggestion was made to use Roberts Rules of Order for decision making, while others expressed concern about using yes/no votes in developing a consensus plan. Rob clarified that the final Plan will include dissenting opinions if need be, but that the strong preference is group consensus.

Public Comments

The Stakeholder Advisory Committee agreed to provide an opportunity both during the meeting (via notes on laptop computers) and at the end of the meeting for public comments. These comments were received on the laptop computers and are direct quotes.

Public Comment #1

“To answer Jimmy’s question about this group not being elected officials, here’s why it doesn’t matter:

The District’s board needed to be elected officials because the new rules and programs would primarily affect local governments and they needed buy-in to the problems and solutions; and

The rules and policies that come out of this group will primarily affect Ag permits, which are held by the people here and governed by EPD

The folks at this table are the ones who will be affected by the policies; municipalities won’t, so it’s much less important than with the District for elected officials to be at the table.”

Public Comment #2

“The process undertaken for the Flint River basin planning is excellent and UGA and EPD should be commended for the effort. Any planning is good if it enlightens and brings fruitful thought to a critical issue.

The results of this work must be considered in any statewide planning effort.

However there is a glaring absence of recognition that the Flint is part of the greater ACF SYSTEM. How can the state plan for the use of a critical natural resource and totally avoid any consideration for what impacts it might have on the entire system? Is the Chattahoochee and its unrecognized stakeholders to be sacrificed to meet a need at the Florida line while the Flint plans to maintain this resource for its sole use? Should the interests of the Flint be managed and utilized with no consideration of what impacts it has on other parts of the system such as the Chattahoochee? One must wonder what motivations are driving the decision by state not to address other sections of the ACF in Georgia while only providing for planning on the Flint and Metro Atlanta.

Is the Metro North Georgia Water Planning District for example taking into account the impacts resulting from their plans on downstream users? What about the Flint?”

Future Meetings

The SAC will meet on a monthly basis in 2005. The next meeting will be Friday, February 18, with the location to be determined. Meetings will continue to rotate at sites along/near the Flint River, and all meeting dates, times and locations will also be posted on the Flint River Basin Plan website, www.gadnr.org/frbp.

The website and e-mail for the project are as follows:

WEBSITE: www.gadnr.org/frbp

E-MAIL: frbplan@dnr.state.ga.us

**Any questions about or corrections to these meeting notes should be directed to Courtney Tobin (706) 542-7149 (tobin@cviog.uga.edu) or Dennis Epps (706) 542-6244 (epps@cviog.uga.edu), meeting facilitators, Carl Vinson Institute of Government, University of Georgia.